Creation vs. Evolution

  • Thread starter ledhed
  • 9,687 comments
  • 447,032 views
I love how Creationists are very selective with what they take out of the old covenant.

But if I raped a Creationist's young virgin daughter, I wonder if they would offer her to me for marriage in exchange for 50 pieces of silver (or the modern monetary equivalent). Probably not, right?
 
One question (put by me) remains and I'm sincerely interested in its answer, even more now because of the "Santorum" case. He is an american catholic, probably he studied in an american catholic school. Does this means american catholic schools teach "creationism" and that the theory of evolution is against their faith??? Can anyone tell me? First hand experience or not, doesn't matter.

As before, evolution was fact and no one doubted it. Religious classes at my school were basically focused on morality, being told interpretations of the Bible, attempting to follow the life of Jesus as a historical figure, and showing the Bible's relevance in the modern age by presenting the stories within as figurative language, etc, and reconciling them with science.
 
I love how Creationists are very selective with what they take out of the old covenant.

But if I raped a Creationist's young virgin daughter, I wonder if they would offer her to me for marriage in exchange for 50 pieces of silver (or the modern monetary equivalent). Probably not, right?

The excuse for that is that "oh, Jesus's sacrifice nullified the OT laws" or "Jesus's sacrifice created a new covenant." But what about this gem?

Matthew 5:18
For most certainly, I tell you, until heaven
and earth pass away, not even one smallest letter
or one tiny pen stroke shall in any way pass away
from the law, until all things are accomplished.
 
As before, evolution was fact and no one doubted it. Religious classes at my school were basically focused on morality, being told interpretations of the Bible, attempting to follow the life of Jesus as a historical figure, and showing the Bible's relevance in the modern age by presenting the stories within as figurative language, etc, and reconciling them with science.

Thanks, same as I had then. 👍



I love how Creationists are very selective with what they take out of the old covenant.

But if I raped a Creationist's young virgin daughter, I wonder if they would offer her to me for marriage in exchange for 50 pieces of silver (or the modern monetary equivalent). Probably not, right?


DK
The excuse for that is that "oh, Jesus's sacrifice nullified the OT laws" or "Jesus's sacrifice created a new covenant." But what about this gem?

QUOTATION OF MATHEW 5:18


I'm not a creationist but I also do love how anti-theists are very selective with what they take out of the Bible. 💡

Anyway ... I'll help DK to better demonstrate his point (whatever that may be) by posting a lot more the entire .... uh .... sermon. And let me indulge in some "selectiveness", although I post it all I will nevertheless bold a few bits. Just because I like them.

1 Now when Jesus saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him,

2 and he began to teach them. He said:

3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

4 Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.

5 Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.

6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.

7 Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.

8 Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.

9 Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called children of God.

10 Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

11 “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.

12 Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

13 “You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.

14 “You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden.

15 Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house.

16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.


21 “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder,[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’

22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister[c] will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’[d] is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.

23 “Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you,

24 leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to them; then come and offer your gift.

25 “Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still together on the way, or your adversary may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison.

26 Truly I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.


27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’[e]

28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.

30 And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

31 “It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’[f]

32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

33 “Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’

34 But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne;

35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King.

36 And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black.

37 All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.[g]

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[h]

39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.

40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well.

41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles.

42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’

44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,

45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that?

47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?

48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.



Now, back to Creation vs. Evolution
 
Now, back to Creation vs. Evolution


Yeah that :lol:

I will just add that most all atheists will never consider that each part of the book is written to specific people at specific times, it's written for everyone but not to everyone.

Oh well, as per gtp standards attack the bible in an attempt to discredit a creator. It holds no patents lol.
 
I'm very surprised by this - I guess it must depend on which state you are in, but generally speaking I thought Australian public schools were pretty firm on not allowing creationism to be taught in science class... apparently not as firm as they ought to be.

I'm not quite sure how I ended up in this thread, but I've got to say, this surprised me too. Creationism taught in an Australian school? :crazy:

As before, evolution was fact and no one doubted it. Religious classes at my school were basically focused on morality, being told interpretations of the Bible, attempting to follow the life of Jesus as a historical figure, and showing the Bible's relevance in the modern age by presenting the stories within as figurative language, etc, and reconciling them with science.

It was pretty much the same at my school.

I, for one, consider Evolution to be a fact-based theory (in part fact, in part still theory), but most definitely scientific, and I consider Creationism to be non-scientific. Nothing non-scientific should be taught in school next to anything scientific under the umbrella of science. It simply doesn't belong there. Evolution isn't taught as part of an "Origin of Species" course, it's taught as part of scientific education, which necessarily has to be scientific.
 
Last edited:
Yeah that :lol:

I will just add that most all atheists will never consider that each part of the book is written to specific people at specific times, it's written for everyone but not to everyone.

Oh well, as per gtp standards attack the bible in an attempt to discredit a creator. It holds no patents lol.

Being from a Catholic School, I'm fully aware that the Bible was written by different authors, at different times and for different purposes.

You have it wrong. Most fundamentalists will never consider that each part of the book is written to specific people at specific times, and not all those parts written in such a specific manner will be relevant or applicable today.

The only reason the Bible comes up at all is because one of those specific books, particularly Genesis, has inspired people whom it was not written for to reject the Theory of Evolution and the literal mountains of evidence that support it.

This, again, in no way disproves the existence of a Creator. It merely disproves the Book of Genesis. Which is the only reason this thread is almost as long as the Mahabharata.
 
The book of Genesis is not read properly by the majority, religious or otherwise. I'm not going to go down that road though, you either take the time to figure it out or you don't.

And no, I don't have it wrong at all 👍
 
I'm not a creationist but I also do love how anti-theists are very selective with what they take out of the Bible. :idea
I hope you are not referring to me, I'm catholic. ;)

My point still stands. There is nothing in the new testament that says to disregard the entire set of laws of the old covenant or what I was referring to in particular. I wish there was, there would be no ammunition for conservative christians against homosexuality if there was.

But I digress.
 
i wonder would people advocate the merging of church and state outside of christian based states?

i had to study 5 major religion subjects in school(just three in high school haha) and was marked poorly because of it




let me recap what those were for the sake of enjoyment:

1)quran: have to memorise the verses and present them publicly in class(embarresment if you didn't)

2)tajweed: study the meaning of these verses.(what God intended to say rather than what he did say)

3)hadith: study Muhhamed biography.

4)tawhed: study the meaning of belief in case you don't know how to refute evidance.

5)feqeh: how to live your life the muslim way. example how to pray. how to make hajj. sharia law.



and this was in a private school where the church influence was supposedley minimal.
 
Why exactly do you think this a mis-use of "theory"?

Probably because saying "fact based theory" is redundant as theories are based on facts, and saying "in part fact, in part theory" is mixing things up a bit unless specifically talking about the fact of evolution (life evolved) and the theory of evolution (explanation of how based on the facts).

Or something like that.
 
Probably because saying "fact based theory" is redundant as theories are based on facts,

That's true. But this was said in contrast to evolution being fact. Evolution is a theory, based, like theories are, on facts. So, in other words, evolution isn't a fact, it's a fact-based theory. But I don't think that makes the use of "theory" a mis-use here.

and saying "in part fact, in part theory" is mixing things up a bit unless specifically talking about the fact of evolution (life evolved) and the theory of evolution (explanation of how based on the facts).

I should have added that emoticon, shouldn't I? As you seem to be aware, though, it's a well known fact that life has evolved and is still evolving, yet, the same can't be said about how life evolved. It is, and always will be, a theory. I don't see a mis-use of the word "theory" here either.

Or something like that.

Hmm, maybe. I'll wait for it.
 
I'm not quite sure how I ended up in this thread, but I've got to say, this surprised me too. Creationism taught in an Australian school? :crazy:



It was pretty much the same at my school.

I, for one, consider Evolution to be a fact-based theory (in part fact, in part still theory), but most definitely scientific, and I consider Creationism to be non-scientific. Nothing non-scientific should be taught in school next to anything scientific under the umbrella of science. It simply doesn't belong there. Evolution isn't taught as part of an "Origin of Species" course, it's taught as part of scientific education, which necessarily has to be scientific.
Many scientists know that darwinism is pseudoscience.
 
I, for one, consider Evolution to be a fact-based theory (in part fact, in part still theory), but most definitely scientific, and I consider Creationism to be non-scientific.
The "in part fact, in part still theory" doesn't make any sense.

1. Evolution will always be a theory so the word "still" is very much redundant. A concept like a theory is not something that can be proven outright, it's too broad and it can not become fact or a law. A theory gains acceptance (like evolution already has), but it will always be theory.

2. A theory is backed by evidence (which is what you call "fact"?), but saying a theory is "part-fact, part theory" doesn't make any sense at all. A theory is back by facts/evidence, but can not be broken down into constituent pieces. Therefore "dividing" a theory doesn't make sense.

3. You cannot "consider" the theory of evolution to be anything but a theory backed by large amounts of evidence. That's what it is.

That's why your statement makes it seem like you don't know what a scientific theory is.
 
The "in part fact, in part still theory" doesn't make any sense.

Granted, that is funny now. :lol:

1. Evolution will always be a theory so the word "still" is very much redundant. A concept like a theory is not something that can be proven outright, it's too broad and it can not become fact or a law. A theory gains acceptance (like evolution already has), but it will always be theory.

Right. And isn't that what I've just said?

2. A theory is backed by evidence (which is what you call "fact"?), but saying a theory is "part-fact, part theory" doesn't make any sense at all. A theory is back by facts/evidence, but can not be broken down into constituent pieces. Therefore "dividing" a theory doesn't make sense.

Nevermind. I agree with you.

3. You cannot "consider" the theory of evolution to be anything but a theory backed by large amounts of evidence. That's what it is.

Indeed it is.

That's why your statement makes it seem like you don't know what a scientific theory is.

And that really is funny. :lol:
 
The book of Genesis is not read properly by the majority, religious or otherwise. I'm not going to go down that road though, you either take the time to figure it out or you don't.

And no, I don't have it wrong at all 👍

The Book of Genesis, if taken literally, says that man is made out of clay and that the Universe was created in six days. If taken symbolically, it still gets the order wrong and the timeframe still doesn't match scientific evidence. If taken as a purely mythical text meant to illustrate spiritual or moral concepts, absolutely no problem.
 
Yes spirit and such of course, also a blood line.

But it does not depict the creation of the world, only an age. I really don't want to fiddle around with text for miles on end, but it's not the 'beginning' as most believe. All I'm saying is how it was written and what it meant, not trying to prove truth from it.

I think you know what I am getting at.
 
Why exactly do you think this a mis-use of "theory"?

I know it's a misuse of the word because a Theory is a concept which has lived up to the highest possible standards of acceptance by the scientific community. There's no higher level of "This is how it is" in science than a Theory. It is not just some notion that folks ought to think about. It is an idea (hypothesis) that has been subjected to the most rigorous scrutiny and refined by the collection of evidence, and found to be completely consistent with all known facts. Furthermore, no demonstratable exceptions have been found to make it obviously incorrect.

In science, a Theory is knowledge that is all but written in stone. It remains subject to scrutiny with new science, new observation, but is firm enough that it is accepted as fact. The theories of gravitation, general relativity, special relativity, evolution.... All are "theories" but all are understood to be factual and well-enough understood to be used to predict their effects on materials in their field of discussion.

A scientific Theory is not some grad student at a UCLA lab saying, "Hey, what if this......?"
 
I know it's a misuse of the word because

Hmm, ok.

a Theory is a concept which has lived up to the highest possible standards of acceptance by the scientific community. There's no higher level of "This is how it is" in science than a Theory. It is not just some notion that folks ought to think about. It is an idea (hypothesis) that has been subjected to the most rigorous scrutiny and refined by the collection of evidence, and found to be completely consistent with all known facts. Furthermore, no demonstratable exceptions have been found to make it obviously incorrect.

Umm, yes. Well, sort of.

In science, a Theory is knowledge that is all but written in stone. It remains subject to scrutiny with new science, new observation, but is firm enough that it is accepted as fact. The theories of gravitation, general relativity, special relativity, evolution.... All are "theories"

Umm, yes. Edit: Actually, what was I saying here? Did I just read over something like "but is firm enough that it is accepted as fact" without blinking? You meant it can be considered fact for all intents and purposes. You didn't actually mean to say it's fact, or did you now?

but all are understood to be factual

Erm, you meant to say can be considered fact for all intents and purposes?

and well-enough understood to be used to predict their effects on materials in their field of discussion.

Umm, yes.

A scientific Theory is not some grad student at a UCLA lab saying, "Hey, what if this......?"

Well, yes.

However, I'm still confused.

I know it's a misuse of the word because

You know, as in know, that my use of "theory" is a mis-use of the word? Well, let's look again at what I've said, and this time let me explicitly add that silent emoticon, or better, let me just omit that nonsense in the brackets, seeing it wasn't even relevant to what I was actually saying.

So, I've said: "I, for one, consider Evolution to be a fact-based theory."

Now, could you please explain to me how you could possibly know, as in know, that my use of "theory" is a mis-use of the word? I'd really like to know, not just why you'd think so, but how you can possibly know.
 
Last edited:
It's not about word games, it's about whether there is any proof for it.

Everything anybody knows about life on the planet points to species developing from other species over immense amounts of time, all the way back to the first "organic" chemicals. The body of "proof" is basically everything around you, and DNA leaves a trail that's marked more clearly than any road signs ever could have done.

The insistence so many people have that "No, that just can't possibly happen" is beyond absurd.

Evolution is a Theory (remember, the highest level of acceptance you can give a scientific concept) because all of the known evidence fits, and it explains all of the known evidence.

All anyone has to do to debunk Evolution as we understand it is to produce one single solitary piece of evidence, like a fossil or a DNA sequence, that couldn't possibly be interpreted to belong in the map of species that we have. Just one! Where is it? Why is it so hard to find? Just one organism whose DNA has nothing shared with any other plant or animal. Perhaps an organism that doesn't even have DNA.

All of the stuff we have found supports Evolution, and not a single solitary piece of anything shows Evolution to be "pseudoscience."

I find it vaguely amusing that the term "pseudoscience" was probably coined by someone who had not the faintest notion what science actually is. Without understanding science, who is this person to tell us that our science is false???!?!?!
 
Back