Creation vs. Evolution

[Danoff]

**4 questions above please... label your responses to each.**

 

[Delirious]

whats the point, yer just going to refute them back

If the tone of my post was humerous, it's because I don't think that the claims made in genesis are even close to credible. But I really would like to see those questions (1) answered in all honsety (which, as duke pointed out, is not happening).

not exactly sure what questions there u want answered

Indeed, some biologists rely on evolution being correct on a daily basis - and it pans out in the form of new technology. How do you account for this (2)?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i1/computer.asp

Perhaps fallible man has foweled up the story of Jesus and the telling of the bible? Perhaps the men you base your faith in are fallible like the rest of us (3)?

if you research the manuscripts by the dates and how many copies there are...you'll find that there are more accurate copies than there are copies of such manuscripts like homer (and none of the corrupt text crap, 95% of the texts that exist match)
http://home.earthlink.net/%7Eronrhodes/Inspiration.html
http://www.ronrhodes.org/Manuscript.html

Well science is written in a book too - lots of them. And other religions are written in books - lots of them too. Why did you pick this one (4)?

because my "religion" isnt about about a religion, but a personal relationship (thru Jesus Christ)

have a good day (expects to come back to an entangled argumentive mess)

 

[code_kev]

So rather then answering the questions, you linked us to some fundie sites? Great...

"oh look at how complex nature is"

Ummmm so?

The other stuff is pretty weak too, so what if place names etc match up?

 

[Duke]

because my "religion" isnt about about a religion, but a personal relationship (thru Jesus Christ) *gets ready to duck stones*

Considering that you apparently believe in the literal dogma of the Creation myth, I don't even need to pick up a stone, let alone throw it at you. Your statement here is totally absurd.

what will it all matter man's greatest achievements when he dies and faces God on judgment day for an account of his life?

What will all of the adherence to religious dogma and denial of modern knowledge matter when a man dies and his 'soul' puffs out of existence like a flame with no oxygen?

 

[Max_DC]

Wow that is great... on the left side we have a religious fanatic and on the right side about 5 people trying to come up with arguments.... you live in 2 different worlds.... I mean honestly, XVII won't change his mind and he probably won't find any new members for his church in this thread... it is so useless... but hey go on.... I'll watch from now on.....

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Considering that you apparently believe in the literal dogma of the Creation myth

Theory, not myth...

This entire conversation all comes down to one thing:

Fact vs. Truth​

It's as simple as that.

Couple of questions, though:

1. Has matter always existed?
2. Which calender was used when scientist discovered the fact that dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago?
3. What if John Scopes lost?

 

[Duke]

Theory, not myth...

Uhhh, NO. Creation is NOT a theory. It is a myth. The word was appropriately used.

the·o·ry

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.

3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.

5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.

6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

You have to get down to #5 before you find anything that can be remotely used to describe Creationism. And before all you religious people jump on #6 with shouts of glee, understand: that is precisely what we have maintained Evolution is throughout this entire thread. It just happens to be the 'assumption' that fits the observed facts so perfectly that its probability of correctness approaches 100%.

THAT'S PRECISELY WHAT SCIENCE IS ALL ABOUT. On the other hand, here's the definition of 'myth':

myth

1.
a. A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth.
b. Such stories considered as a group: the realm of myth.

2. A popular belief or story that has become associated with a person, institution, or occurrence, especially one considered to illustrate a cultural ideal: a star whose fame turned her into a myth; the pioneer myth of suburbia.

3. A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology.

4. A fictitious story, person, or thing: “German artillery superiority on the Western Front was a myth” (Leon Wolff).

Those definitions fit the bill precisely.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Uhhh, NO. Creation is NOT a theory. It is a myth. The word was appropriately used.

You have to get down to #5 before you find anything that can be remotely used to describe Creationism. And before all you religious people jump on #6 with shouts of glee, understand: that is precisely what we have maintained Evolution is throughout this entire thread. It just happens to be the 'assumption' that fits the observed facts so perfectly that its probability of correctness approaches 100%. THAT'S PRECISELY WHAT SCIENCE IS ALL ABOUT.

On the other hand, here's the definition of 'myth':

Those definitions fit the bill precisely.

It all goes back to truth v fact again.

Theory definition 1: "Widely accepted"? Just because something is widely accepted does not mean that it is fact. It is a truth.

Remember it was "widely accepted" that the Earth was flat, until that "truth" was proven wrong by the "fact" that the Earth is round.

Theory definition 6: Probability of correcteness, no matter how close to 100%, does not equal fact. It is a truth -- as explained in the example above.


Religion is a truth and science is a truth. I stand by my belief that creationism and evolution are both theories. A myth is a made up story -- even if a person chooses to believe in a myth, it is still a truth -- not fact.

 

[Duke]

Theory definition 1: "Widely accepted"? Just because something is widely accepted does not mean that it is fact. It is a truth.

Remember it was "widely accepted" that the Earth was flat, until that "truth" was proven wrong by the "fact" that the Earth is round.

You're ignoring - deliberately or not - the emphasized parts below. These are, in fact, quite a bit more important than the 'widely accepted' part.

the·o·ry

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

I'd say that, by Christianity's own admission, you can not predict what God is going to do. Hence the whole 'mysterious ways' bit.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

You're ignoring - deliberately or not - the emphasized parts below. This are, in fact, quite a bit more important than the 'widely accepted' part.

That quote sounds strikingly simlar to meteorology (at least the highlighted portion), and yet they still manage to get it wrong sometimes. The fact (yes, I said it -- FACT j/k) of the matter is, no one can make 100% guaranteed predictions about naturual phenomena.

I'd say that, by Christianity's own admission, you can not predict what God is going to do. Hence the whole 'mysterious ways' bit.

I agree.

 

[Danoff]

not exactly sure what questions there u want answered

What day were Jupiter's moons created etc..? (1, still)

Indeed, some biologists rely on evolution being correct on a daily basis - and it pans out in the form of new technology. How do you account for this (2)?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/cre...i1/computer.asp

That's not an answer. Tell me in your own words how you account for the fact that scientists rely on evolution to develop technology and it works. (2, still)

if you research the manuscripts by the dates and how many copies there are...you'll find that there are more accurate copies than there are copies of such manuscripts like homer (and none of the corrupt text crap, 95% of the texts that exist match)

So? How does that prove that the men who wrote the bible and translated it and passed on stories by word of mouth before the bible was written are infallible? (3, still)

Well science is written in a book too - lots of them. And other religions are written in books - lots of them too. Why did you pick this one (4)?

because my "religion" isnt about about a religion, but a personal relationship (thru Jesus Christ)

You're dodging the question. How do you know that you have a relationship through Jesus Christ and not some other prophet or with some other diety? (4, still) They have just as much claim to truth as Christianity. What is it that makes Christianity a sepcial religion here, because you have a book? Other religions have books! Because you claim to have a prophet? Other religions claim to have prophets! Because you claim to have a personal relationship with your God? People of other religions claim to have personal relationships with their Gods!

btw: when you respond, put my original questions in quotes by typing [ q u o t e = danoff] text [/ q u o t e ]. Without the spaces in the word quote, and no spaces before or after the "=".

 

[Duke]

That quote sounds strikingly simlar to meteorology (at least the highlighted portion), and yet they still manage to get it wrong sometimes. The fact (yes, I said it -- FACT j/k) of the matter is, no one can make 100% guaranteed predictions about naturual phenomena.

Who said anything about 100% accuracy? I never did. I said approaching 100%.

Evolution is a long process. Analysis can be used to determined what most likely happened and also what WILL happen - and the speed with which the process occurs will make those predictions accurate as they can be refined to fit the observed phenomena.

Weather, on the other hand, occurs very quickly. There is little chance to update and re-publish predictions on an hour-by-hour basis; nonetheless the NOAA does just that. They can predict weather with an astonishing degree of accuracy, in fact, despite local anomalies and errors.

Certainly errors occur in all predictions; otherwise we all be prescient and we would all go to the casinos and make ourselves filthy rich playing craps or blackjack. Except, of course, if things were 100% predictable, I predict that no one would ever be stupid enough to open a casino in the first place.

I agree.

Thank you. You've just invalidated Creationism as a theory and defined it as a myth. Accurately.

 

[Pako]

smart man, send AiG an e-mail then and tell em how exactly you refuted one of their technical papers so they can take it down since you seemed to prove it wrong

i will honestly say i am not someone who excels in science...but when i see human life, animal life, everything on this earth and universe...hard to see how you cannot conclude that there was an intelligent designer behind it

by the way, i dont believe God was the author of evolution (not that we are evolving, devolving/decaying as time progresses) those 6 days you read in genesis 1...if you read it just as it says...no science magnifying glass over the pages...6 literal days of creation

Sorry for being so late in this discussion, and this really isn't the point, but more of another. How much of what is said in the Bible is meant to be taken literally?

Take this passage in Peter for example:

2 Peter 3:8-9 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society



8. But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

So, a day is LIKE a thousand years. "Like a thousand years" meaning a value that's a LONG time.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Who said anything about 100% accuracy? I never did. I said approaching 100%.

My mistake.

Evolution is a long process. Analysis can be used to determined what most likely happened and also what WILL happen - and the speed with which the process occurs will make those predictions accurate as they can be refined to fit the observed phenomena.

Makes sense.

Weather, on the other hand, occurs very quickly. There is little chance to update and re-publish predictions on an hour-by-hour basis; nonetheless the NOAA does just that. They can predict weather with an astonishing degree of accuracy, in fact, despite local anomalies and errors.

True.

Certainly errors occur in all predictions; otherwise we all be prescient and we would all go to the casinos and make ourselves filthy rich playing craps or blackjack. Except, of course, if things were 100% predictable, I predict that no one would ever be stupid enough to open a casino in the first place.

True.

Thank you. You've just invalidated Creationism as a theory and defined it as a myth. Accurately.

*blindsided* How on Earth did I do that?!

 

[Wayne Gratiot]

Before I get back into the fray here, I wanted to "repost" a couple of my original posts in this thread from back in December 2004. I wanted to be sure that "17" didn't miss reading them, or more likely, totally put them out of his mind since reality has no place in his fantasyland mode of thinking. The traditional creationist method of learning is to bury your head in the sand (usually in the imaginary Garden of Eden where even T-Rex apparently got along well with everybody and everything and appears to have not eaten meat because that would certainly have given them bad karma) when confronted with logic, common sense and, of course, scientific investigative procedures and the overwhelming wealth of knowledge accumulated from scientists' neverending efforts. Creationists just have to look to their goofy fantasyland guidebook and amazingly all the answers are right there for all to read. Oops, I already got carried away just trying to introduce my prior posts. I'll add more as this post goes on.

Hi!! Stick with me for a few paragraphs and I want to jump into the debate here; but first I wanted to introduce myself and talk about how I got here. I am one of the original members of the Racing/Line site who has luckily escaped what remains of it and became a member of House of GT where the original R/L database is now available to all to submit times for the Gran Turismo series of games.


From looking at the forums at HGT, I found a reference to some videos of the upcoming GT4 that are on GTP and I quickly came here to see them. I became a member which is something I should have done long ago, but for many years was happy at Racing/Line under Andy and didn't join any of the other top sites like GTP and HGT. The funny part is I still haven't looked at any of the videos yet because I started to look around this site and spotted this thread and spent a few hours going thru the whole thing to find that things haven't changed much since I was involved in a heated debate in the Ventura, California newspaper Star-Free Press from Oct. 83 thru Sep. 85 in their Letters To The Editor section.

I got into it then when a former Baptist minister had written in to explain why he left the church. He had realized that he didn't believe in the hocus-pocus God stuff anymore and called the Bible "a collection of myths about a mythological god". You can imagine how the feathers flew when the tunnel-vision Creationists saw that and there was a flurry of very angry and insulting letters that called him every name in the book.

Of course, the 'truth" of the Creation myth was talked about and Evolution was dismissed as lies from atheist scientists. Having had at least one telescope since I was about 8 years old and always a science buff, I couldn't just let these closed-minded idiots just spout off without throwing some facts into the fray. In the first of many letters, I made fun of their ignorance and put some facts out there for them to look into, but of course all I got in return was the same mumbo-jumbo nonsense I have seen here in this thread. I was called all kinds of names and instantly became the new target of their hilarious ramblings. It apparently was okay for them to belittle the former minister, but I couldn't say anything derogatory about their myths and the battle was on.

For over 2 years, we went back and forth with the biggest drawback being that you could only have one letter published a month which left me waiting for that whole month to be able to reply to the same erroneous info that these creationists have been trying to feed the public to justify their fantasyland nonsense for decades. I just kept laughing at them and fed them more facts about scientific knowledge and it got to the point where one poor woman called me a "severely retarded child" and spouted off a few verse references from Genesis to "prove" her point. What got her going was when I mentioned that according to Genesis 1:11-12, on the 3rd day of creation, "The earth brought forth grass and herb...and the tree yielding fruit..." while it isn't until the 5th day of creation in Genesis 1:20-22 that "The waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life...". When I sarcastically pointed out that life in the "waters" absolutely came way before life on the land, it apparently was more than she could take and name-calling, as usual, was all she had left. The Bible is so full of such nonsense and I made sure to remind them of it constantly. The Editor finally sent back my last letter and stated that they had decided to stop printing the Evolution vs. Creation letters because there was little interest from their readers in a "poll" they had taken. This was not true as they had mentioned in an editorial a few months earlier how the "never-ending debate over Evolution vs. Creation was one of the most popular topics in the Letters section". I always assumed they had succumbed to extreme pressure from the religious fanatics to stop me and censuring me was the easiest way. I noticed that they had allowed another flurry of letters in 1989 after a retired professor of anthropology, archeology and paleontology wrote in to comment about the pressure of creationists to either include the fantasy of creation as a science or take out all references about evolution from classrooms.

The letters that followed just regurgitated the same old crap that they had unleased on me years before. Some more letters with factual information about evolution appeared and suddenly they closed off the letters on the subject again before I could get back into it. Big Brother or what?

As to allowing "Creation Science" (a definite oxymoron) to be taught along with Evolution in the classrooms, I would be all for it as it would expose the creation nonsense for what it is and soon be booted back to the churches where it belongs. As to the demand for equal representation, how far do you think a demand to include a large chapter on Evolution and science in general as a part of the Bible would get?

It's obvious that a lot of people are very happy living within the warm, safe and comfortable myths of religion rather than the cold, harsh reality of that terrible scientific investigation into how the universe really works. The frantic need to keep their little fantasyland going by not listening to anything that is now know as absolute fact just keeps them in the Dark Ages as opposed to actually seeking out the real truth and marveling at how my imaginary supreme being, "Mother Nature" really does things. Creationists will continue to avoid facts and not investigate anything they don't want to hear and it will, as always, be left to scientific endevours to actually keep looking for the answers and let us know what is really going on. There is really no dispute about the fact of evolution throughout the universe while there are many ideas proposed in many theories on how evolution actually works. The fact that scientists sometimes disagree about evolution doesn't mean that they don't accept it as reality. Scientists will always keep seeking out the answers and the creationist view of just sticking your head in the sand and hoping evolution will go away is just a weak, sad attempt to stay uneducated in the blind faith and hope that their "Six Day Quickie" is the truth. Sorry, it ain't gonna happen!!! As William Penn said: "Inquiry is human; blind obedience brutal. Truth never loses by the one, but often suffers by the other."

As to the Bible's "truths", I wondered that if God is omniscient, omnipresent and eternal, why did he forbid Adam and his favorite rib, Eve, to eat the fruit of the "Tree of Knowledge" and then tempt them with the serpent or Devil? God must have known exactly what would happen, so why didn't he just create them to be more pleasing to Him in the first place? He also would have known that the Devil was a "bad apple" and not create him at all.

Also, in Genesis, who was Cain afraid of in the land of Nod and where did his wife come from? According to the Bible, only Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel existed at this point. Who are these other people and how did they suddenly appear?

The battle will continue on and those of us with open minds will continue to seek the truth and not turn our backs on what the sciences discover. I worry about the children of these creationists who will never be given the chance to seek out the truth because the parents already know it all. I have always asserted that belief in imaginary supreme beings is the largest unrecognized form of mental illness running rampant on the earth today. The truth is out there; you just have to look for it.

Thanks to Famine (who I know of from Racing/Line) and all the other people who have not let the creationists slide by with the "It says so in the Bible" nonsense. Very impressive knowledge is out there for all to learn if they would just take that chance.

Wayne

And later, after a6m5's asking about more mistakes in the goofy guidebook, I added this post.

Thanks for the welcome PublicSecrecy. As to the letters, they were all from Ventura County, California and I also received a number of irate phone calls and hate letters with propaganda enclosed to "enlighten" me. Not very enlightening as it turned out, but very funny stuff anyway.

As to a6m5's question about more erroneous stuff in the Bible; the Old Testament, which was purported to be divinely inspired, is the product of many authors who wrote it over a period of a thousand years and were concerned with the needs and the best interests of the Jewish people at the time the authors were alive. The writings in the Old Testament were accepted as documents given by God through authors whose names were stated or implied within the texts. For example, it was believed that Moses had authored the Torah, or Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy). It was assumed that King Solomon wrote Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs because his identity is inferred in Ecclesiastes (1:1, 12) and mentioned in the Song of Songs (3:9, 11). Each prophetic writing was treated as an integral work by a single writer. The psalms labeled "The Psalms of David" were accepted as the work of that king. And so on.

Modern scholarship has demonstrated that each of these assumptions is wrong. There is no way that Moses could have written the Torah. King Solomon wrote neither Ecclesiastes nor the Song of Songs. The prophetic books are composites. The authorship of the psalms is unknown, and they were composed at different times over a period of hundreds of years by different writers.

For example, in Genesis 14:14, Abraham is said to have led a group to the city of Dan, but in Judges 18:29 it is reported that the city of Dan did not come into existence until the time of the Judges - long after Moses was dead. How could the Gileadite conquest of an area known as Havvothjair be reported by Moses (Num. 32:41; Deut. 3:14) when it took place during the time of the Judges (Judges 10:3-4)?

Would a single writer (Moses) entertain contradictions in his writing? The number of animals taken aboard the ark is reported as two of each kind - clean and unclean in Genesis 6:19, but as seven pairs of clean animals in Genesis 7:21.

According to Numbers 35:6-7, the Levites were to receive certain territories as an inheritance, but in Deuteronomy 18:1 it is written that they were to receive no inheritance.

Exodus 3:13-15 and and 6:2-3 states that the Hebrews did not know the personal name of their god Yahweh until it was revealed to Moses on the holy mountain, yet Genesis 4:26 notes that from very early times people called upon the name of Yahweh. Indeed, the pre-Mosiac patriarchs were familiar with the name Yahweh (Gen. 22:14, 26:25, 27:20, 28:13).

The accumulation of such problems has made it clear that more than one author contributed to the so-called books of Moses. The Mosiac authorship has been replaced by a mosiac of authors.

So, yes there is more stuff like the afore-mentioned descrepancies in the Bible.

Wayne

So noting that the goofy guidebook is full of misinformation and the above is only a small portion of the nonsense contained therein, how about an explanation of these few glaring errors from our current creationist know-it-all and any other comments he would like for us to continue to laugh at.

People like "17" are at this very moment trying to undermine the educational systems in the USA and get evolution branded as lies and deception while wanting their "Six Day Quickie" to be taken literally and taught to all our children and grandchildren. Our bonehead President is one of them also and these people voted him in to help with their cause.

Creationists like "17" are undoubtedly a cancer to humanity and need to be exposed as the backward-thinking people that they are. They are running scared and will do anything to stop science from pushing their fantasyland nonsense into the past with all the other myths. Gosh, I hope I didn't offend Anderton too. By the way, I'm just getting riled up. I have a lot more to add as this debate goes on and on.

That's it for the ranter for now, bring on the raver!!!

 

[code_kev]

Hell if they can believe in giant boats that carry 2 of every animal ever, I can believe in Godzilla.

 

[Tacet_Blue]

So, a day is LIKE a thousand years. "Like a thousand years" meaning a value that's a LONG time.

Exactly...but try tell XVII that

those 6 days you read in genesis 1...if you read it just as it says...no science magnifying glass over the pages...6 literal days of creation

I tried...it didn't get me very far.

Most sensible Christians accept that the 6 days of creation are a metaphor and not literally 24hour "days"

Although even turning those days into thousands of years doesn't explain the rather strange order that they are in

 

[Duke]

So noting that the goofy guidebook is full of misinformation and the above is only a small portion of the nonsense contained therein, how about an explanation of these few glaring errors from our current creationist know-it-all and any other comments he would like for us to continue to laugh at.

At the risk of furthering the assumed insult, Anderton's going to crap a whale when he sees that little tidbit.

 

[PS]

17 (what is your real name if I may ask? It's strange calling somoene by a number), what do you make of other religions' and their theories? Is yours right? Do you believ other ones? Are they all wrong? Or, have you just resorted to whatever sect of Christianity you follow out of convenience?

And as far as me (yes, in highschool) commiting sins, I don;t think I have strayed form the 10 commandments or commited any of the 7 deadly sins.

7 sins I believe are...

-pride
-sloth
-gluttony
-greed
-envy
-lust
-anger

While to a certain degree everyone experiences these, but you can't avoid them really.
It's completely ludicrous (sp?) to assume that noone has ever to any degree commited one of those sins, and it's ludicrous to assume that we can't commit those sins. It's inevitable.

Anger - natural reponse to anything besieging our morals or things we have come accustomed to; cheated on, stolen from etc.

Lust - While more common in men, you can't avoid it. Hey, 17, look at Elisha Cuthbert or Angelina Jolie for a while (and then repent of course).

Envy - Everyone gets envious of something sometimes. Also innevitable. If you are poor, and you live beside someone who is rich, it's unavoidable. They're rubbing it in your face and you have every right to be jealous of whatever they have.

Greed - This one is a no-no, I'll agree to that. Don't be a self-profiting whore, people.

Gluttony - Yup, another no-no. Don't be a packrat, people.

Sloth - Yah...yet another. But I might cut you some slack if you're paralyzed from the neck down. But lazyness is still kinda bad.

Pride - This can get you into trouble. Particularily if you over-do it, or are just becomming ignorant.

The point of all that? All the bible is, is a book by which to lead a relatively nice life. Albeit it's a bit overzealous compared to the lives we lead today, but it did help keep the wacko's down, especially in 18-20th century. Even as little far back as the '50's, people seemed a lot more disciplined than they are now, but don't expect the bible to actually give you answers to all of life's problems or explain where stuff came from. It's like the crayon writing on the fridge, it basically tells you to "behave and stfu & stop asking questions".

 

[Carl.]

XVII, I may I suggest that since you've made quite a few of us go through some lenghty reading on sites like www.answersingenesis.org and the likes, here's a recommended read for you (or everyone interested in this thread). This one also looks pretty good.

Anderton's going to crap a whale when he sees that little tidbit.

I learn a lot on the english language on these forums. Some of these expressions are jewels.

 

[Danoff]

-pride
-sloth
-gluttony
-greed
-envy
-lust
-anger

At times, all of these are necessary and good. At other times they are not. It doesn't make sense to call them deadly sins. They're part of life. You have to learn to control your greed. You have to learn to control your pride - but it's key to have both. Same with the rest of the so-called "deadly" sins.

 

[PS]

At times, all of these are necessary and good. At other times they are not. It doesn't make sense to call them deadly sins. They're part of life. You have to learn to control your greed. You have to learn to control your pride - but it's key to have both. Same with the rest of the so-called "deadly" sins.

I never called them Deadly Sins- that's what they are. Same as the 10 commandments. The 7 Deadly Sins are only deadly when taken to extremes, because eventually they will lead to someone's demise if they are not heeded. While I've never really experienced the extreme of any of those, there are plenty of examples, none of which I care to give due to my mother screaming at me to come eat dinner.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Thank you. You've just invalidated Creationism as a theory and defined it as a myth. Accurately.

Wait a minute. Are you saying that because Evolution, is closer to being more accurate than Creation that that makes it fact?

It still goes back to truth vs. fact.

 

[87chevy]

you people are still 'discussing' this?


lol, has anyone, and i mean anyone, changed their views based on this thread?

i doubt it. but it's good entertainment lol

 

[Delirious]

2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

plus why are you using the new testament which was translated from greek while the old testament was translated from mostly hebrew and a little of aramaic?

im done with this thread, no more replies...you guys wont change, and this fundamental wont change

 

[Duke]

Wait a minute. Are you saying that because Evolution, is closer to being more accurate than Creation that that makes it fact?

It still goes back to truth vs. fact.

No, what I'm saying is that the theory of Evolution can be used to predict/interperet the outcome of natural phenomena with reasonable and repeatable accuracy. That fits the definition of a theory.

God, however, 'works in mysterious ways', by Christians' beliefs and writings. Since it is mysterious - and by every religious text ever written, ever - we cannot understand or predict the outcome of God's plans and actions. Therefore, Creationism fails to meet the definition of theory and must be considered a myth.

You're hung up on this fact vs. truth thing, and it's a red herring.

 

[Jpec07]

*sigh*

So much pointless bickering. Both ideas are suggested theories for our origins on the planet earth, and neither has enough proof to back it up completely from a scientific standpoint. Scientists tend to favor evolution because it is a more logical idea (based on what we know about genetic mutations in this day and age), and if I had no care about the matter I might agree with them. But the idea that I've come from a single-cell organism that was formed by chance through the coincidental formation of amino acids at just the right point in time doesn't make me feel very good. Personally, I'd much rather believe that there is a God who orchestrated the creation of everything. The idea that I have a specifically designated purpose is so much more appealing than the idea that I just exist and could do whatever I want until the day I die. Thinking that there is a God who made me for a purpose; that gives me something worth living for, and that is why I favor creationism.

Besides, the theory of evolution, if proved correct, won't really discredit God in any way (it will just be another time in which we humans figured out just how he did it - at least from my viewpoint).

Note that the above is just my opinion; please don't try to change my mind as I've already examined both sides with a fine-toothed comb; this is what I've determined. Also, don't let this friendly debate turn into a flame-war. Just because we may disagree on the origins of life doesn't mean we should start insulting each other.

No, what I'm saying is that the theory of Evolution can be used to predict/interperet the outcome of natural phenomena with reasonable and repeatable accuracy. That fits the definition of a theory.

God, however, 'works in mysterious ways', by Christians' beliefs and writings. Since it is mysterious - and by every religious text ever written, ever - we cannot understand or predict the outcome of God's plans and actions. Therefore, Creationism fails to meet the definition of theory and must be considered a myth.

You're hung up on this fact vs. truth thing, and it's a red herring.

In science, a law is a fact that we know. For instance, it is a law that if you throw something in the air it will eventually hit the earth. The theory tries to explain why the law happens. The Theory of Gravitational Attraction is our theory for why when something goes up it comes down. We can't really prove that gravity exists, as we have no tests for it, but so far every time we've thrown something up it has come down, so the theory is widely accepted as fact. In this case, the law is that we are here, we are alive, and we have all these abstract skeletal remains. The theories explain the why behind why we are alive, and why we have these remains. By this standard (the correct standard, according to about 4 different college science texts and a handful of college professors of science), both Creationism and Evolution are perfectly viable theories (along with the theory that we were planted here by aliens, or that the skeletal remains are all falsified by the government). Creationism is favored because of its appeal to the masses, and Evolution is favored because it is more likely to be proven over time. However, to say that one is fact and the other is not is out of the question, as there is not enough evidence either way.

And I can't believe I'm letting myself be drawn into this debate that will undoubtedly turn into a flame war if people don't watch it...

 

[a6m5]

Also, don't let this friendly debate turn into a flame-war. Just because we may disagree on the origins of life doesn't mean we should start insulting each other.

I agree with this, and I tried to respect everybody, regardless of their stance on Creation/Evolution. I'm glad somebody brought it up.

Very nice take, Jpec.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

*sigh*

So much pointless bickering. Both ideas are suggested theories for our origins on the planet earth, and neither has enough proof to back it up completely from a scientific standpoint. Scientists tend to favor evolution because it is a more logical idea (based on what we know about genetic mutations in this day and age), and if I had no care about the matter I might agree with them. But the idea that I've come from a single-cell organism that was formed by chance through the coincidental formation of amino acids at just the right point in time doesn't make me feel very good. Personally, I'd much rather believe that there is a God who orchestrated the creation of everything. The idea that I have a specifically designated purpose is so much more appealing than the idea that I just exist and could do whatever I want until the day I die. Thinking that there is a God who made me for a purpose; that gives me something worth living for, and that is why I favor creationism.

Besides, the theory of evolution, if proved correct, won't really discredit God in any way (it will just be another time in which we humans figured out just how he did it - at least from my viewpoint).

Note that the above is just my opinion; please don't try to change my mind as I've already examined both sides with a fine-toothed comb; this is what I've determined. Also, don't let this friendly debate turn into a flame-war. Just because we may disagree on the origins of life doesn't mean we should start insulting each other.


In science, a law is a fact that we know. For instance, it is a law that if you throw something in the air it will eventually hit the earth. The theory tries to explain why the law happens. The Theory of Gravitational Attraction is our theory for why when something goes up it comes down. We can't really prove that gravity exists, as we have no tests for it, but so far every time we've thrown something up it has come down, so the theory is widely accepted as fact. In this case, the law is that we are here, we are alive, and we have all these abstract skeletal remains. The theories explain the why behind why we are alive, and why we have these remains. By this standard (the correct standard, according to about 4 different college science texts and a handful of college professors of science), both Creationism and Evolution are perfectly viable theories (along with the theory that we were planted here by aliens, or that the skeletal remains are all falsified by the government). Creationism is favored because of its appeal to the masses, and Evolution is favored because it is more likely to be proven over time. However, to say that one is fact and the other is not is out of the question, as there is not enough evidence either way.

And I can't believe I'm letting myself be drawn into this debate that will undoubtedly turn into a flame war if people don't watch it...

You have made valid points. I don't see why anyone would flame you.

 

[Max_DC]

*sigh*

So much pointless bickering. Both ideas are suggested theories for our origins on the planet earth, and neither has enough proof to back it up completely from a scientific standpoint. Scientists tend to favor evolution because it is a more logical idea (based on what we know about genetic mutations in this day and age), and if I had no care about the matter I might agree with them. But the idea that I've come from a single-cell organism that was formed by chance through the coincidental formation of amino acids at just the right point in time doesn't make me feel very good. Personally, I'd much rather believe that there is a God who orchestrated the creation of everything. The idea that I have a specifically designated purpose is so much more appealing than the idea that I just exist and could do whatever I want until the day I die. Thinking that there is a God who made me for a purpose; that gives me something worth living for, and that is why I favor creationism.

....

Note that the above is just my opinion; please don't try to change my mind as I've already examined both sides with a fine-toothed comb; this is what I've determined. Also, don't let this friendly debate turn into a flame-war. Just because we may disagree on the origins of life doesn't mean we should start insulting each other.




And I can't believe I'm letting myself be drawn into this debate that will undoubtedly turn into a flame war if people don't watch it...

Perfectly fits into my theory of people believing in God : Believe is wishful thinking of people who can't handle life's struggles without having a imaginated leader...

Uhhhh that sounds harsh..... and also offensive... and it's offtopic... and it could be interpreted as flaming... but it is a opinion in the opinions-forum
And yes I know, it isn't as easy as in my 2 line sentence...
If anyone gets offended, hey its April 1 ... although that refects my opinion, a part of it at least...
Again sorry I don't want to change your mind, I stated several times before that a attempt wouldn't work at all... but what you said just fitted perfectly...