- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Creationism and Evolution Questions
Posted on 6/14/25 at 6:04 am to BestBanker
Posted on 6/14/25 at 6:04 am to BestBanker
quote:
Incest was not forbidden until the time of Moses, so it was acceptable prior. How do I accept this?
I simply do.
The timeless, unchanging God at one point said, “hey, you know what, you brothers and sisters stop fricking now, I don’t like it anymore.”
0
Posted on 6/14/25 at 7:04 am to Artificial Ignorance
quote:
No.
However, and I suppose I should not be surprised, some people do.
Maybe god put men’s rib back after dudes just sat around all day sucking their own cocks? He clearly didn’t think through the unintended consequences.
Posted on 6/14/25 at 8:31 am to Artificial Ignorance
The only reason anyone ever took Genesis literally is by, like you, asking the wrong questions.
Forcing literalism on Genesis is a young, and dumb, method of interpretation. Also, ironically, it’s a product of enlightenment modernity.
Forcing literalism on Genesis is a young, and dumb, method of interpretation. Also, ironically, it’s a product of enlightenment modernity.
Posted on 6/14/25 at 8:55 am to Artificial Ignorance
God made the world and everything in it with the ability to adapt. The end.
Posted on 6/14/25 at 9:21 am to bayoubengals88
quote:
The only reason anyone ever took Genesis literally is by, like you, asking the wrong questions.
Only, aye?
Ever wonder through the mind of others
(Iike other books, non Christian) about creationism? Do they ask the wrong questions, too? Ever wonder why so many get it wrong?
This post was edited on 6/14/25 at 9:22 am
Posted on 6/14/25 at 9:42 am to Artificial Ignorance
quote:
Dat a sister accepted sperm of her brother (repeat, rinse, repeat again and again) to create you (and me). Yikes.
Dat is the point of my question.
She rinsed with her brother's sperm?
Posted on 6/14/25 at 9:48 am to Sao
quote:
Redbones
You misspelled primordial-ooze-creationists.
Posted on 6/14/25 at 10:12 am to BestBanker
These threads always brings out the crazy close minded religious people. The normies see you defending creationism and a 6000 year old earth the same way the liberals defend crazy shite like transgender surgery in kids. And you wonder why they make fun of us down here.
Posted on 6/14/25 at 10:18 am to ColdDuck
What's interesting to me is both sides of the issue must have an initial creation, and one side chooses to deny. The ooze (or whatever collides or spontaneously arrives to start the evolutionary procedures) must've come from something, right?
Posted on 6/14/25 at 10:33 am to bayoubengals88
quote:
he only reason anyone ever took Genesis literally is by, like you, asking the wrong questions.
Forcing literalism on Genesis is a young, and dumb, method of interpretation. Also, ironically, it’s a product of enlightenment modernity.
I keep seeing this claim repeated, but it’s historically off base. For the vast majority of Jewish and Christian history, Genesis was read at face value: God created the world in six real days. Jewish tradition, reflected in works like the Seder Olam Rabbah (2nd century AD), dated creation to 3761 BC, a view still preserved in the Hebrew calendar. Early Christians likewise overwhelmingly held to a literal six-day creation and a young earth. You can choose to read the creation account literally or not, but historically, it’s clear that those who believed in Genesis overwhelmingly understood it as a literal account.
Posted on 6/14/25 at 11:30 am to Artificial Ignorance
quote:
How do Creationists reconcile its incestuous design (brothers and sisters required to make babies to create the world’s population)?
1) The creationists guidebook is the Bible. The Bible is the written history of the Jewish people. All through this book other peoples are mentioned.
2) In fact, the first child that was ever born was sent into the Land of Nod for the punishment of murder, where there were already other peoples. He married and had children with these people. How those people were in Nod, is not answered in the only book we have at our disposal of that time
3) Despite all that, the Great Flood eliminates your question of lineage. Noah had 3 sons, who married into 3 different families. The reproduction of the next generations were most likely cousins, not brothers and sisters
Posted on 6/14/25 at 12:33 pm to Artificial Ignorance
quote:
1. How do Creationists reconcile its incestuous design (brothers and sisters required to make babies to create the world’s population)?
It's not hard for me in the least.
Adam's children were still extremely close to perfection living to hundreds of years in age. You can't go from two to filling the earth without sibling marriage, at least in the beginning. Once the DNA started to weaken and life spans shortened (particularly after the Flood) then procreation among those closely related became dangerous and was prohibited.
Posted on 6/14/25 at 2:43 pm to BestBanker
quote:
What's interesting to me is both sides of the issue must have an initial creation, and one side chooses to deny. The ooze (or whatever collides or spontaneously arrives to start the evolutionary procedures) must've come from something, right?
Yes.....and?
Posted on 6/14/25 at 3:48 pm to BestBanker
quote:The theory of evolution makes no claims about creation or the origin of life. God and evolution can exist simultaneously unless you're a young-earth creationist.
What's interesting to me is both sides of the issue must have an initial creation, and one side chooses to deny. The ooze (or whatever collides or spontaneously arrives to start the evolutionary procedures) must've come from something, right?
I’m agnostic about both God and ooze, but evolution is an observable phenomenon. You don’t need to believe in creation or genesis of any kind to observe it.
This post was edited on 6/14/25 at 4:10 pm
Posted on 6/14/25 at 4:13 pm to Artificial Ignorance
In science class, in.. It was 7th or 8th grade.. so I guess that's jr high. One day our science teacher was out and the priest took her class for that day and I remember everyone being surprised when he said he "obviously" supports evolution. We are constantly evolving so I don't know why its a hard concept for people to understand.
Posted on 6/14/25 at 4:21 pm to ThuperThumpin
quote:Actually... no. You don’t need to believe in either to accept the theory of evolution. You can believe God created life, or that life emerged from ooze, or neither, or both. In fact, you can hold any belief about the origin of life (minus "young earth" theories) and still accept evolution. I believe that theists often react negatively to evolution because they misunderstand what it explains, like the origin of life, or thinking it claims we came from monkeys.
Yes.....and?
This post was edited on 6/14/25 at 4:31 pm
Posted on 6/14/25 at 4:55 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
The theory of evolution makes no claims about creation or the origin of life.
What is your claim about the origin of life?
Posted on 6/14/25 at 4:56 pm to OweO
quote:
In science class, in.. It was 7th or 8th grade.. so I guess that's jr high. One day our science teacher was out and the priest took her class for that day and I remember everyone being surprised when he said he "obviously" supports evolution. We are constantly evolving so I don't know why its a hard concept for people to understand.
What did we "evolve" from, Bird Brain?
Posted on 6/14/25 at 5:04 pm to AmosMosesAndTwins
quote:The core of his argument seems to hinge on the idea that the "amazing design of life" is so incomprehensible that it couldn’t have arisen through evolutionary processes, which he summarized as "random chance." It's just an argument from incredulity He assumes that because he can’t personally fathom how something could be true, it must not be true. Or must require an alternative explanation, like intelligent design.
We’re amazed with ourselves at our level of understanding. But what the universe really is is beyond our comprehension. Amazing as we think we are, what else is out there that our primitive brain can’t reconcile?
There’s also a hint of strawman. Evolution is misrepresented as relying solely on "random chance," which oversimplifies and weakens the actual theory. Evolution isn’t just random. It’s a process guided by specific mechanisms. Evolution isn’t a free-for-all. It’s driven by natural selection, a non-random process.
Take the eye as an example (since he mentioned light and the occipital lobe). It didn’t pop into existence fully formed. It likely started with simple light-sensitive cells in ancient organisms, giving them a slight survival edge. Over millions of generations, those cells evolved into more complex structures, eventually becoming the eyes we have now.
His error is in thinking evolutionists see life’s complexity as a problem to rationalize when it's simply seeking to explain how it could happen without invoking chance or non-testable factors.
Page 6 of 10
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News