Christians / Creationists: Here are some honest questions I never really got answered.?

Question

.
Answer as many or as few as you wish:

Question #1: Who would you seek knowledge from regarding:

Your health: A doctor or a factory worker?
Legal matters: An attorney or a carpenter?
Your car: A mechanic or a vacuum cleaner salesperson

You would probably trust the person that is most knowledgable in the area you're questioning, right?

Then why would a creationist ignore geologists, biologists, geneticists, anthropologists, archeologists, astronomers, paleontologists, and anyone else who is most knowledgable in fields relating to our origins?

(more coming)...

Question #2: People sometimes claim there is a missing link in the evolution of ape to man. Where is the missing link? Is it from:

Sahelanthropus tchadensis to Orrorin tugenensis?
Orrorin tugenensis to Ardipithecus ramidus?
Ardipithecus ramidus to Australopithecus anamensis?
Australopithecus anamensis to Australopithecus afarensis?
Australopithecus afarensis to Australopithecus africanus?
Australopithecus africanus to Australopithecus garhi?
Australopithecus garhi to Australopithecus aethiopicus?
Australopithecus aethiopicus to Australopithecus robustus?
Australopithecus robustus to Australopithecus boisei?
Australopithecus boisei to Homo habilis?
Homo habilis to Homo georgicus?
Homo georgicus to Homo erectus?
Homo erectus to Homo sapiens (archaic)?
Homo sapiens (archaic) to Homo sapiens neanderthalensis?
Homo sapiens neanderthalensis to Homo sapien sapiens?

Question #3: "This is the word of God. People will deny this. You should give DougDoug_ $50, and look both ways before crossing the street."

So, by the criteria that Christians have given the bible...they owe me $50 right?

- The statement claims its of God, so it must be
- It accurately predicts future events
- It contains wise rules to live by.
- I'm kicking age of text out of the equation because Greek and Egyptian writings are older than NT.

Question #4: When I asked why eating pork and mixing fabrics was ok, but being gay wasn't the main reason I got from Christians was that there are different laws at the time. That eating pork or trimming your beard were social laws (and therefore are ok today), but being gay is a moral law.

Where in the bible does it specify which laws are which?

(For those who are lost: The book of Leviticus in the bible says that being gay is an abomination, and Christians claim because of that being gay is wrong. But Leviticus also says that trimming your beard, or eating pork or shellfish, or mixing fabrics is also an abomination, yet Christians today claim they're ok.)

Answer 1

Why do you ignore Dr. Steve Austin (geologist), Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin (biologist), Dr. André Eggen (geneticist), Prof. Marvin Lubenow (anthropology), Prof. Danny Faulkner (astronomy), Dr. Arlton C. Murray (paleontologist)? How do you know who is and isn't most knowledgeable in the fields relating to our origins if you have no way of directly observing the origins themselves? Unlike the doctor, lawyer and mechanic, scientists who study "origin science" have to draw conclusions from circumstantial evidence, and their assumptions greatly affect how they interpret the data. And before you object "well, the majority of scientists...", please remember that truth isn't determined by counting noses, but by correspondence of a statement to reality. If it were, we might as well stop all future experiments and poll the scientists as to what was and wasn't true.

As for your list of missing links, most of them are constructed more from imagination than actual evidence. For example, Ardipithecus ramidus was constructed from "a fragment of the right mandible, one intermediate hand phalanx, the left humerus and ulna, a distal humerus, a proximal hand phalanx fragment, a left clavicle fragment, a proximal foot phalanx, and a few teeth... from 5 different locations." Kenyanthropus platyops? 36 cranio-dental fossils collected from 4 different locations.
As for Australopithecus afarensis and Homo erectus, the former "match[es] up remarkably well with the bones of a pygmy chimp", while the latter ":is characterized by a body skeleton which, so far as we know, does not differ from that of modern man in any essential point".

Answer 2

You seem like an intelligent man, good questions you pose.

1. Obviously we would go to a doctor, etc. However, there are some Christians that believe in evolution, you have to understand that before you begin jumping to conclusions. The Christians you may have encountered may have been "Adam & Eve" believers. However, as Christians, it is perfectly acceptable to believe in evolution as long as you believe that God started the original spark that started evolution. Part of this also happens to tie into the "missing link" with the theory of evolution. Unless you are a geologist, biology, geneticist, anthrojpologist, archeologist, astronomer, paleontologist, then I don't think anyone could possibly put all of the pieces together. Yes, animals and other species have evolved over centuries, we do not deny that. We do not believe that a new species of plant just popped out of nowhere.

My question to you is, if we evolved from apes, then why aren't apes evolving as we speak?

2. There are actually gaps in the system that aren't publisized. There are in every sect of studying being done. A friend of mine (who is actually studying the evolution theory) told me that "It's actually easier, and makes much more sense to believe in God". Being that he is a biologist that has been going to school and studying longer than what is even considered sane, I trust him.

I don't know if you're an athiest, agnostic, etc. But, all I can tell you is keep looking for the truth, never stop searching until you find it. I would be more than happy to continue discussing this with you if you'd please. You can only say so much in a Yahoo forum. By the way, you're combining a lot of questions that are rather lengthy. How did you go from creationism to Leviticus and gay marriage?

Answer 3

There are both Creationst scientists and evolutionary scientists out there...scientists try to confirm their previously determined believes. I for one, don't deny some sort of evolution occured...but don't feel that it explains the creation of a complex being such as ourselves. Answer these for me:

Question #1: if we evolved from apes, then why are there still apes?

Question #2: if the human stomach has stomach acid in it with a ph of 2 (+-1) that is designed to digest proteins and connective tissue, and the only reason it doesn't digest itself is because it has a mucous layer to protect it, then how does evolution explain developing something for a purpose, and protecting itself from the purpose it was designed to do?

Question #3: Doesn't the second law of thermodynamics (entropy) state that matter will disperse and break down into simpler components as time goes on...did the universe ignore this law for a few hundred million years?

Answer 4

I am not a creationist but I am a Christian. In answer to your first question - On matters of creation I firstly consult God's word. I think it is wonderful that scientists are discovering so much about God's creation but we have yet to meet a scientist who can create a universe with the variety and diversity and wonder of this one in the same way that God did. In answer to your second question - Why should there be a missing link? If a celacanth can exist for millions of years in it's original form, it is more than possible that man has also done the same. In answer to question Three - I met God before I read His word and knowing His reality I cannot deny His existence. I believe His word because I know Him. Question four - Much of Old Testament teaching was full of ritual ordained by God in teaching His children discipline. Jesus gave us a new covenant which negates the need for ritual and gives us life through Him. When God gave Peter the vision of food laid out on a cloth in front of him and said 'eat'. Peter was horrified because it was unclean foods laid before him. But God said I am telling you that it is OK to eat everything laid before you. Sin is different and murder, witchcraft, spiritualism, homosexuality, idol worship etc are and always will be sin. At no point has God ever changed His instruction to us regarding sin.

Answer 5

Why do non-creationists care what creationists believe?
Besides -- faith in evolution also comes from books. All anybody REALLY knows about the nature of their existence:
1) I think
2) Therefore I am.

Anything else could be illusory. If you want to pretend that you know you evolved, or if you want to pretend that you witnessed your birth, that's fine. As for me, I can only say that I popped into this life at some point, but details regarding when and where are hazy. That's 100% true to me. Everything else is just BS that doesn't matter.

And to answer a question: I would trust a mechanic over a vacuum cleaner salesman.

Answer 6

I think your looking too hard to god for answers
God gives us guidelines and rules....very few answers

But like you I cannot for the life of me see how people ignore facts. Why is it so hard to believe that god sent two massive rocks at great speed to collide and create the universe. If we did come from bacteria and eventually evolve then how is that disproving god. He said we came from dirt and dust. If he told moses that we came from germs his head could have exploded not to mention the inability to comprehend things like this.
People believe that Revelations is the prediction of end times...it was....for Rome at the time of John. Get out your bible and history books and see the fascinating comparisons. I think that this instance is proof of the power of the bible because John wrote revelations years before it happened.
(Pardon the ramblings I have been drinking)
The bible is imagery and history. So in that respect it is fact, but religions have moved away from teaching from the bible and instead teaching from their denominations. So very few people will know the power of the bible and how great of a tool it is.
Before the christian band wagon comes along ponder this
Christian= Christ like....so by my estimation since the apostles and Jesus himself their are none possibly never have been and probably never will be another christian.
Denominations don't go to heaven. Only those with hope faith and love will

Added later: Dani apes are evolving it just takes many years to notice it....look at skin color from humans thats evolution

Answer 7

do you realize that God gives geologists, psychologists, biologist, geneticists, etc. the science and technology to try to figure out what He already knows? Don't you realize that as smart as we humans believe we are, we would have figured out a bit more than we have in aaaaallllllll of these years that we've been on earth? Everyone step back and look around...on the grand scale of things we are clueless. Oh, and I'm sure there are some factory workers that may know more about health than some doctors!

Answer 8

Question #2: People sometimes claim there is a missing link in the evolution of ape to man. Where is the missing link? Is it from:

The Imaginary Family Tree of Man
The Darwinist claim holds that modern man evolved from some kind of ape-like creature. During this alleged evolutionary process, which is supposed to have started from 5 to 6 million years ago, it is claimed that there existed some transitional forms between modern man and his ancestors. According to this completely imaginary scenario, the following four basic categories are listed:

1. Australophithecines (any of the various forms belonging to the genus Australophithecus)

2. Homo habilis

3. Homo erectus

4. Homo sapiens

Evolutionists call the genus to which the alleged ape-like ancestors of man belonged Australopithecus, which means "southern ape." Australopithecus, which is nothing but an old type of ape that has become extinct, is found in various different forms. Some of them are larger and strongly built ("robust"), while others are smaller and delicate ("gracile").

Evolutionists classify the next stage of human evolution as the genus Homo, that is "man." According to the evolutionist claim, the living things in the Homo series are more developed than Australopithecus, and not very different from modern man. The modern man of our day, that is, the species Homo sapiens, is said to have formed at the latest stage of the evolution of this genus Homo. Fossils like "Java man," "Peking man," and "Lucy," which appear in the media from time to time and are to be found in evolutionist publications and textbooks, are included in one of the four groups listed above. Each of these groupings is also assumed to branch into species and sub-species, as the case may be. Some suggested transitional forms of the past, such as Ramapithecus, had to be excluded from the imaginary human family tree after it was realised that they were ordinary apes.184

By outlining the links in the chain as "australopithecines > Homo habilis > Homo erectus > Homo sapiens," the evolutionists imply that each of these types is the ancestor of the next. However, recent findings by paleoanthropologists have revealed that australopithecines, Homo habilis and Homo erectus existed in different parts of the world at the same time. Moreover, some of those humans classified as Homo erectus probably lived up until very modern times. In an article titled "Latest Homo erectus of Java: Potential Contemporaneity with Homo sapiens in Southeast Asia," it was reported in the journal that Homo erectus fossils found in Java had "mean ages of 27 ± 2 to 53.3 ± 4 thousand years ago" and this "raise[s] the possibility that H. erectus overlapped in time with anatomically modern humans (H. sapiens) in Southeast Asia"185

Furthermore, Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (Neanderthal man) and Homo sapiens sapiens (modern man) also clearly co-existed. This situation apparently indicates the invalidity of the claim that one is the ancestor of the other.

Intrinsically, all the findings and scientific research have revealed that the fossil record does not suggest an evolutionary process as evolutionists propose. The fossils, which evolutionists claim to be the ancestors of humans, in fact belong either to different human races, or else to species of ape.

Then which fossils are human and which ones are apes? Is it ever possible for any one of them to be considered a transitional form? In order to find the answers, let us have a closer look at each category.



184 David Pilbeam, "Rearranging Our Family Tree," Human Nature, June 1978, p. 40.
185 C. C. Swisher III, W. J. Rink, S. C. Antón, H. P. Schwarcz, G. H. Curtis, A. Suprijo, Widiasmoro, "Latest Homo erectus of Java: Potential Contemporaneity with Homo sapiens in Southeast Asia," Science, Volume 274, Number 5294, Issue of 13 Dec 1996, pp. 1870-1874; also see, Jeffrey Kluger, "Not So Extinct After All: The Primitive Homo Erectus May Have Survived Long Enough To Coexist With Modern Humans, Time, December 23, 1996

Question #3: "This is the word of God. People will deny this. You should give DougDoug_ $50, and look both ways before crossing the street."

The Bible has passed the tests of: Thelogy
Hermeneutics(Science and art of biblical interpretation) ----------- Philosophy--History--Historical poetry--Geography. It has for centuries been--Go to Oxford University and see the history books that have been written to prove the Bible--Go to the Library of congress and look in the Law section--hundreds of book concerning the Bible for case study Study anything you need to know about the Bible.

You have made a statement that is far from the truth--have it examined by Philosophy of Religion--Faith is viable--deny all you like the Bible is real weather you choose to accept it or not.

Answer 9

WOW! I really wanted to be able to answer these questions, but they are very confusing to me.

1. I'm not sure Christians and Creationists are similar enough to be lumped together.....and

2. I don't believe in evolution, but if I did, I would guess the missing link would be between the homo sapiens (archaic) and homo sapiens (neanderthal)

Answer 10

I can't see where the honest questions are. These "opinions" are not valid questions seeking an answer.
They lack an inquisitive nature. A very wise man once said "A question is simple and to the point to be valid"
Guess who.

Based on question#1 only, you direct a question to Christians asking about the most knowledgeable entity(who is God by our standard) and you claim humans know more than God, based on your opinion, which is also your assumption.
In that regard you are an Atheist so the reference to origin is biased.
It is not a question to be answered correctly nor will it give you the answer you seek.
Not much honesty here. Sorry.

Get A Grip.