Creation vs. Evolution

[Touring Mars]

So if evolution says there is no god and we evolved from nothing into what we are today and what creatures are today etc, I don't believe and agree with that.

As I said in my previous post, evolution does not say there is no God. The existence (or non-existence) of God is, however, completely irrelevant when explaining what evolution is and how it works, since the scientific theory of evolution does not require the presence of such an entity for it to be valid. While there is scope for those who wish to believe that God is involved, it remains for them to explain exactly what that involvement might be. In the meantime, the idea that evolution happens 'on its own' (or atleast without the need for divine intervention) remains compelling.

 

[buggs1a]

I'm on vicadin so really tired right now and in pain. So ill try to answer.

It's hard for me to explain why I believe in god and bible etc. It goes to what I have said about faith. Then once I came to god by faith I know more and more about god and the truth. Like I don't believe earth etc happened from nothing. I learned a bit here and there and god touched me by giving me faith to believe and make him my lord. Sorry for repeating.

Then I began to be different. I began to understand god and the bible. Before, I just believed I think. Faith but I didn't know about faith before I was saved. I believed from Sunday school etc. And after I made Jesus my savour I began to understand as I said. People noticed a huge change in me too. How I talked and how I started to feel differently towards others and sin.

An example is this. Before I was saved certain things didn't bother me. Now they do. When I did bad stuff I didn't feel bad or care much. After I was saved I cared. I didn't like some of the same things and when I did bad stuff I was and now am bothered. I just changed. I didn't do anything but god changed and still changes me to be a better person. Love others and serve others. And things have happened to me and in my life that confirm god is real and he died for me and loves me. Loves you too more then you can ever possibly imagine.

Sorry. That's not really why I believe, but is a tiny bit. I'm not sure what else to say. I can't remember back then, but I do know now certain things and have changed a lot.

 

[Keef]

If I were to see a person out on the street who was in distress, do you think I would be obligated to help that person?

 

[sk0pe]

I'd like to ask you one simple question about this paragraph (since it represents your point of view and it's the base of your beliefs):

Why do you believe that?

It's an honest question.

That's the million dollar question.

If your raised with christian beliefs and haven't been taught otherwise you just simply 'believe' and 'have faith' , rather than having sound logical reasons for believing.

 

[TheDrummingKING]

That's the million dollar question.

If your raised with christian beliefs and haven't been taught otherwise you just simply 'believe' and 'have faith' , rather than having sound logical reasons for believing.

This. If only we were able to do an experiment for this.

It would consist of two new-born children. Have them in a controlled environment, raise one without ever speaking of religion, and the other being taught it 24/7. The one being taught about it would probably believe in it, believing that it is "faith" that makes them believe. The other, however, will probably grow up and not even think about there being some supreme being watching over them.

The thing is, (okay I'm having a bit of trouble wording this, someone help out ) doesn't religion teach that we all should believe in God from birth? (I'm not actually sure on this part, and it's also the part I'm having trouble wording, because how I have it written now isn't how I want to.. ) Because if you're supposed to be born and believe in God, and have faith him, then why would that child (not being taught of religion) grow up and never even think of him? Or have the possibility of that happening, considering religions start somewhere, from someone believing without being taught.

 

[Katahu]

What's the difference between Gnostic and Agnostic?

PD: I'm totally using Gnostic as my "fake lame rapper" name. G-nostic is in da house!

Let's say, for the sake of argument, you are an Agnostic. Being an Agnostic means you are not completely sure whether or not God truly exist. In this case, it's like a not being sure about which baseball team you should root for.

Let's now say that you're a Gnostic. Being a Gnostic means you have a firm belief in God, but you don't follow the traditional scriptures set forth by Orthodox Christians. Unlike being sent to Sunday church and then spoon-fed information from a book (with its accuracy being questionable) on who God is and how to worship him, you learn about God through experience in your personal life instead. You develop a close relationship with God and look to him in ways that Orthodox Christians do not. But it's not just God you are trying to understand. As a Gnostic, you would even pursue all that is "truth" and "knowledge" in an effort to get a better understanding of your own existence here on Earth and a better understanding of God. This goes far beyond what scripture can teach you.

Keep in mind that Gnosticism is an early form of Christianity and anyone associated with them was supposedly exterminated and driven to extinction by Orthodox Christians over a millennium ago because they were deemed to be Heretics. Their text was supposedly lost to time until an Arab found one of the old texts buried in the sands of Egypt about over a century ago.

 

[Dotini]

Keep in mind that Gnosticism is an early form of Christianity and anyone associated with them was supposedly exterminated and driven to extinction by Orthodox Christians over a millennium ago because they were deemed to be Heretics. Their text was supposedly lost to time until an Arab found one of the old texts buried in the sands of Egypt about over a century ago.

One of the heresies of the Gnostics was the notion that Jesus was more a spiritual guide than Lord. It has even been suggested by scholars that Hindu or Buddhist traditions influenced gnosticism.

Source: The Gnostic Gospels, by Elaine Pagels, introduction, pg xx.

 

[Public'sTwin]

Let's say, for the sake of argument, you are an Agnostic. Being an Agnostic means you are not completely sure whether or not God truly exist. In this case, it's like a not being sure about which baseball team you should root for.

Let's now say that you're a Gnostic. Being a Gnostic means you have a firm belief in God, but you don't follow the traditional scriptures set forth by Orthodox Christians. Unlike being sent to Sunday church and then spoon-fed information from a book (with its accuracy being questionable) on who God is and how to worship him, you learn about God through experience in your personal life instead. You develop a close relationship with God and look to him in ways that Orthodox Christians do not. But it's not just God you are trying to understand. As a Gnostic, you would even pursue all that is "truth" and "knowledge" in an effort to get a better understanding of your own existence here on Earth and a better understanding of God. This goes far beyond what scripture can teach you.

Keep in mind that Gnosticism is an early form of Christianity and anyone associated with them was supposedly exterminated and driven to extinction by Orthodox Christians over a millennium ago because they were deemed to be Heretics. Their text was supposedly lost to time until an Arab found one of the old texts buried in the sands of Egypt about over a century ago.

#winning#winning#winning#winning#winning#winning#winning#winning

TM,

Have you ever noticed anyone who has a total acceptance of scientific findings, yet retains a belief in the existence of God despite their acknowledgement of science's findings and all of its strictures? It is, in some very narrow respects, compatible.

Should that be the case, I think there is a very interesting dichotomy in the general practice of Christianity (not 'plain' old Gnosticism) which would have to be resolved. . .

 

[Touring Mars]

TM,

Have you ever noticed anyone who has a total acceptance of scientific findings, yet retains a belief in the existence of God despite their acknowledgement of science's findings and all of its strictures? It is, in some very narrow respects, compatible.

Should that be the case, I think there is a very interesting dichotomy in the general practice of Christianity (not 'plain' old Gnosticism) which would have to be resolved. . .

If by 'total acceptance of scientific findings' you mean 'total acceptance of the scientific method' (and therefore, a tacit acceptance that future findings may challenge current theories), then yes, I've met many people like that. Most of my family and some of my best friends are Christians who readily accept science, and would sooner accept a scientific explanation of our origins than a biblical one. Interestingly, of all my scientist workmates who are religious (including Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs and a Buddhist), all of them accept evolution theory - without exception.

There is also Ken Miller, an expert witness in some high profile court cases regarding the teaching of creationism in US schools.

​

 

[Dotini]

Interestingly, of all my scientist workmates who are religious (including Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs and a Buddhist), all of them accept evolution theory - without exception.

There is also Ken Miller, an expert witness in some high profile court cases regarding the teaching of creationism in US schools.

Ken Miller is indeed a prominent scientist who writes that evolution does not contradict religious faith. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finding_Darwin's_God

A review of Miller's book, Finding Darwin's God, tells us that quantum mechanics permits free will to exist in a world of law, and "if the laws of nature are not as they are, then we would not have been around. Such exactitude in nature could not have come by chance." This is the anthropic principle. http://www.metanexus.net/magazine/tabid/68/id/3079/Default.aspx

There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned’ for life.
http://cosmos.asu.edu/publications/papers/HowBioFriendlyistheUniverse 79.pdf

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1982ARA&A..20....1H

Prominent scientists such as Stephen Hawking, Paul Davies, Michio Kaku and others are sufficiently impressed with the the SAP or the WAP to require the existence of multiverses in order that our own universe not be be non-random.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe

Of course, we don't wants to be forced to choose between multiverses and God, so Paul Davies, in his book The Goldilocks Dilemma, a review of the current state of the fine tuning debate, provides a list of alternatives:

1. The absurd universe
Our universe just happens to be the way it is.

2. The unique universe
There is a deep underlying unity in physics which necessitates the universe being the way it is. Some Theory of Everything will explain why the various features of the Universe must have exactly the values that we see.

3. The multiverse
Multiple Universes exist, having all possible combinations of characteristics, and we inevitably find ourselves within a Universe that allows us to exist.

4. Creationism
A creator designed the Universe with the purpose of supporting complexity and the emergence of Intelligence.

5. The life principle
There is an underlying principle that constrains the universe to evolve towards life and mind.

6. The self-explaining universe
A closed explanatory or causal loop: "perhaps only universes with a capacity for consciousness can exist." This is Wheeler's Participatory Anthropic Principle (PAP).

7. The fake universe
We live inside a virtual reality simulation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

Respectfully submitted for discussion,
Dotini

 

[AndersonG22]

I choose to belive my body is hooked up to machines and they are harvesting my energy. They are holding me captive and so far ive found no way out of the virtual world they confined are minds to, while our bodys grow old and die. Those damn machines taunted us with the matrix movies, teasing us with this false hope that someone would save us. We are alone, We must find a way out of this system. THEY MUST HAVE A WEAKNESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Lain]

I think buggs1a needs to watch the "Why Do People Laugh At Creationists?" series of videos by Thunderf00t on YouTube.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Most of my family and some of my best friends are Christians who readily accept science, and would sooner accept a scientific explanation of our origins than a biblical one. Interestingly, of all my scientist workmates who are religious (including Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs and a Buddhist), all of them accept evolution theory - without exception.

Hmm, I'm curious how you reconcile that. For the Christians that is.

 

[Tesla]

Hmm, I'm curious how you reconcile that. For the Christians that is.

The only way I think that could work is if you say that God created the Big Bang.

 

[niky]

Hmm, I'm curious how you reconcile that. For the Christians that is.

It's pretty simple. By accepting a symbolic or poetic interpretation of certain books of the Bible instead of forcing a literal one. Which isn't that hard to justify, considering many of the books cited as canon for flat-earthers, Geo-centrists (who accept a round Earth because it doesn't contravene the idea of Earth being the center of the universe) and Creationists are told in a more lyrical vein instead of being presented as somber historical record. Which is why most Judeo-Christian sects (particularly the Catholic Church, ever since the reform) have no inherent problems with Evolution or Astrophysics. At least, not anymore.

 

[AndersonG22]

This funny video sums up how I feel about this subject.

WARNING, EXPLICIT CONTENT, very foul four letter words as well as many other bad words your mother wouldnt want you to hear in the video below!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

 

[Keef]

"He's all knowing, all powerful, and all wise, but somehow...just can't handle money!"

 

[Lain]

George Carlin is awesome. 👍

 

[gogatrs]

There is no theory of evolution, just a list of things that Famine allows to live.

That is all

 

[SuperCobraJet]

It's pretty simple. By accepting a symbolic or poetic interpretation of certain books of the Bible instead of forcing a literal one. Which isn't that hard to justify, considering many of the books cited as canon for flat-earthers, Geo-centrists (who accept a round Earth because it doesn't contravene the idea of Earth being the center of the universe) and Creationists are told in a more lyrical vein instead of being presented as somber historical record. Which is why most Judeo-Christian sects (particularly the Catholic Church, ever since the reform) have no inherent problems with Evolution or Astrophysics. At least, not anymore.

So they entertain the idea that the Biblical account must be discounted in lieu of Scientific theory?

Or, are they entertaining the idea that in some yet unexplainable way, the two must be compatible then?

 

[DK]

So they entertain the idea that the Biblical account must be discounted in lieu of Scientific theory?

Yes. The Book of Genesis was written over 3,000 years ago. We knew barely anything about our world back then.

Genesis is just one myth for 3 (Christianity, Judaism and Islam) of many religions. There are many similarities between it and other creation myths from the Middle East at that time period. The feud between Cain and Abel, for example, is similar in some aspects to the feud between the mythical Ancient Egyptian gods Osiris and Set (who were also brothers).

 

[Villain]

You bring up a good point. The parallels in storytelling from the Bible (both Testaments) and Ancient Egypt are striking. Even the whole story of Jesus is mirrored--and predated by a long shot.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Yes. The Book of Genesis was written over 3,000 years ago. We knew barely anything about our world back then.

Genesis is just one myth for 3 (Christianity, Judaism and Islam) of many religions. There are many similarities between it and other creation myths from the Middle East at that time period. The feud between Cain and Abel, for example, is similar in some aspects to the feud between the mythical Ancient Egyptian gods Osiris and Set (who were also brothers).

Who's "We"?

The Bible claims that it was written down by men, but authored by the Holy Spirit.

If, as you indicate, these Christian practitioners of which TM speaks, are inclined to believe Scientific Theory over the Biblical record,
I would have to wonder why they participate in a religion, that they also believe to be in error.

 

[DK]

Who's "We"?

The Bible claims that it was written down by men, but authored by the Holy Spirit.

If, as you indicate, these Christian practitioners of which TM speaks, are inclined to believe Scientific Theory over the Biblical record,
I would have to wonder why they participate in a religion, that they also believe to be in error.

"We" as in the human race.

They may participate in a religion because they may find it to be largely aligned with their own personal beliefs. You make the word "theory" sound like something that an alcoholic comes up with while binge drinking. Scientists, who have relevant knowledge in the field of biology, largely accept evolution as fact. Religion is not solely made up of myths and legends, it is also made up of rituals and moral values.

Theory, in a scientific context, is usually applied whenever an idea is formed via the use of scientific method, e.g. observation.

Want an example of evolution? Evolution occurs because one form of a species is better adapted to its environment than other forms. An example would be "superbugs," microbes which are resistant to sterilising chemicals and antibiotics. They have adapted to their environment (usually a hospital), while other microbes are wiped out.

I suggest you look at the following excerpt from the Wikipedia article on evolution as theory and fact:

In the study of biological species, the facts include the existence of many different species in existence today, some very similar to each other and some very dissimilar, the remains of extinct species in the fossil record, and so forth. In species that rapidly reproduce, for example fruit flies, the process of change from generation to generation — that is, evolutionary change — has been observed in the laboratory.[21] The observation of fruit fly populations changing over time is also an example of a fact. So evolution is a fact just as observations of gravity are factual.

There have been many attempts to explain these biological observations over the years. Lamarckism, transmutationism and orthogenesis were all non-Darwinian theories that attempted to explain the observations of species and fossils, as well as other evidence. However, the modern theory of evolution is the explanation for all relevant observations regarding the development of life, based on a model that explains all the available data and observations (and provides testable predictions). Thus, evolution is not only a fact but also a theory, just as gravity is both a fact and a theory.

Evolution is the best idea we humans have come up with so far that explains how we humans got here.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

"We" as in the human race.

They may participate in a religion because they may find it to be largely aligned with their own personal beliefs. You make the word "theory" sound like something that an alcoholic comes up with while binge drinking. Scientists, who have relevant knowledge in the field of biology, largely accept evolution as fact. Religion is not solely made up of myths and legends, it is also made up of rituals and moral values.

Sort of a players pick, I guess.

Theory, in a scientific context, is usually applied whenever an idea is formed via the use of scientific method, e.g. observation.

A theory, is a theory, is a theory.
It can never be more than a theory.

Want an example of evolution? Evolution occurs because one form of a species is better adapted to its environment than other forms. An example would be "superbugs," microbes which are resistant to sterilising chemicals and antibiotics. They have adapted to their environment (usually a hospital), while other microbes are wiped out.

Adaptation, is adaptation, is adaptation.
Adaptation is not evolution.
Far cry.

I suggest you look at the following excerpt from the Wikipedia article on evolution as theory and fact:

The choice is yours, to believe the Theory of Evolution is factual or not.
However it has never been established as such, nor so far, can it be.
Any factuality assigned is strictly by belief.

Evolution is the best idea we humans have come up with so far that explains how we humans got here.

With this I can agree.
It is strictly man's attempt at explaining origin.

 

[Public'sTwin]

This funny video sums up how I feel about this subject.

WARNING, EXPLICIT CONTENT, very foul four letter words as well as many other bad words your mother wouldnt want you to hear in the video below!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

Can we just put this on the first page so it's not re-posted another 40 times?

Theory, in a scientific context, is usually applied whenever an idea is formed via the use of scientific method, e.g. observation.

'Theory' is not applied. A theory is the set of laws which explain observed behaviours, functions, or actions, in nature; the theory is the cumulus of those laws as expressed in a whole, cogent idea—not an abstract, incomplete, 'what if', crack-brained posit which may or may not solve various natural paraphernalia. As such,

A theory, is a theory, is a theory.
It can never be more than a theory.

A comment like that remains totally devoid of meaning, unless the purpose of his communication was to illustrate that a theory is a theory, in which case he was wildly successful, if not wholely insightful. (I applaud the contribution.) He continues:

Adaptation, is adaptation, is adaptation.
Adaptation is not evolution.

Here SCJ expands his repertoire with what is not merely a tautology, but also a caveat: adaptation is not evolution. (And so adaptation is also not a theory? Or does that mean adaptation is also a theory? Help, SCJ!)

However, I'm inclined to challenge that assertion, as I have a hunch that it may just be in fact a theory (although the theory may not in fact be a fact), which we're all aware of is only a theory. (Since a theory is a theory, which may or may not be fact.) I would like to provide some insight, though, as to what else evolution is, if not adaptation: it is genetic variation among parent and offspring, apparently a theory, the death and subsequent loss of certain genetic agitators within a biosphere, a videogame, a process whereby cumulative genetic distinctions eventually manifest in different species and subspecies, and, most importantly, a theory.

I would like to call upon SCJ to further expand upon my ideas in case I have missed anything (although I believe my insights were thorough, I cannot be sure because they were not scrutineered by the either the author of the material I worked with, or his peers, and so my suggestions remain a theory and must be tested, which SCJ will do to establish their factuality).

Yours,

-Greg

 

[Lain]

A theory, is a theory, is a theory.
It can never be more than a theory.

The choice is yours, to believe the Theory of Evolution is factual or not.
However it has never been established as such, nor so far, can it be.
Any factuality assigned is strictly by belief.

Same could be said about the theory of gravity.

Adaptation, is adaptation, is adaptation.
Adaptation is not evolution.
Far cry.

Adaptation through means of natural selection most certainly is evolution.

 

[niky]

So they entertain the idea that the Biblical account must be discounted in lieu of Scientific theory?

Or, are they entertaining the idea that in some yet unexplainable way, the two must be compatible then?

What constitutes a "Biblical account"? Note that the Bible is made up of dozens of different books, by dozens of different authors. There are conflicting accounts in some books, and conflicting teachings... all tracing the evolution (be it a dirty word or not) of the religion itself. The contradictions are so bad that several Gospels were dropped for clarity, and thousands of scholars and theologians have made a living over the century of clarifying, correcting and settling doctrinal disputes.

For one to reconcile the Bible as a historical or scientific document, one first has to reconcile the Bible with itself. That's why most theologians accept the accounts of the earlier parts of the Bible as symbolic or mythical and not cold, hard historical fact.

-

Hah. Evolution is a Theory. How many times have I heard that one? And how many times have we explained it to you? Theory doesn't mean what you think it means...

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

The problem with evolution is it tries to explain everything including complete opposites which ends up explaining nothing. It's not even much of a theory it's just something man made up to slap the data in. Evolution theory in a nutshell is "stuff happens".

 

[Public'sTwin]

The problem with evolution is it tries to explain everything including complete opposites which ends up explaining nothing. It's not even much of a theory it's just something man made up to slap the data in. Evolution theory in a nutshell is "stuff happens".

That is a terrible theory about the Theory of Evolution. I don't even think it qualifies as a theory. I think you should stick to tautologies. At least then you'll verify your own proposals.