Creation vs. Evolution

[Duke]

When you guys start disproving what I've been saying, rather than doing what I outlined on my post above this, then I will merit your theory with some intellectual thought.

When you start to understand that you cannot negatively prove something, then I will merit your posts with any further attention. You obviously didn't even read my post. You totally ignored and dismissed this question, because you have no reasonable answer for it:

I can't prove God didn't create the Earth and life. But I also can't prove that the Keebler Elves didn't. Nor can I prove that Yog-soggoth didn't. Nor can I prove that the Earth wasn't laid like an egg by the Eagle of the Universe. You can't prove that either. You've picked your favorite, arbitrarily, out of all the infinite numbers of Creation myths the human race has conceived, and you've staked your life on it. But you have no proof other than your self-referential Bible, which must be true... because it says it must be true.

On the other hand, there is absolutely no logical way to select the Judeo-Christian Creation myth over, say, the Epic of Gilgamesh, or that of Tagaloa-fa'atutupu-nu'u, the Samoan Creator...

How do you choose?

 

[Touring Mars]

Burnout, you are not 'forced' to agree with Creationism... questions such as the existance of God, faith, and the true nature of creation are always going to be unanswered by science... but Creationism seeks to answer these questions with blatant falsehoods - simply because they refuse to believe that the entire Bible is not wholly literally true.... faith and personal belief is too important to let these psuedoscientists muddy the waters with distorted rubbish as printed on their website... here is a good example...

http://www.answersingenesis.org/museum/docs2005/0523dinosaurs.asp

Raptors lived about 4,500 years ago... ahem... so 2500 BC then? I hope the Egyptians knew about that while they were building the pyramids... there are historical records from back then (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3rd_millennium_BC), but strangely no mention of raptors running about...

God created everything 6000 years ago... so these mass extinctions (of which there is ample geological evidence) didn't happen then... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event#Extinction_events
and how do explain all those objects visible in the night sky?? There are billions of stars visible from Earth.... the nearest is so far away, it takes light over 4 years to reach us from it... if the universe is only 6000 years old, then by definition, we could not see any objects further than 6000 light years away from us.... and yet, we can and do see objects many many times further away than that... objects that are so far away, that the light from them has taken millions of years to reach us.... proof that the universe is much older than 6000 years...

 

[Burnout]

When you start to understand that you cannot negatively prove something, then I will merit your posts with any further attention.

What's frustrating me is that, perhaps I'm not disproving your theory, but you're doing the same exact thing to me.

No, I'm not a scientist. No, I can't disprove your theories derived from studies taken last year. But, on the other hand, I bring the site Answers in Genesis to the thread's attention and it gets dismissed as utter crap.

You're not even giving me a choice of whether my theory could possibly correct. You're just saying that, of the two, yours has more scientific backing, therefore it is the more logically correct choice.

Agreeably, too. At first glance it would seem like the proper choice, however, it too has it's fair share of undeniable holes.

No, I can't go and point them all out, I'm not highly educated in the Science behind the Evolutionary belief. You'd have to ask someone who was, like the guys from Answers in Genesis.. Oh, wait, I forgot; they're lieing morons. Sorry.

 

[Duke]

But, on the other hand, I bring the site Answers in Genesis to the thread's attention and it gets dismissed as utter crap.

It's dismissed as utter crap not because it's a Creationist site, but because I've already read through it extensively and what they are claiming as "science" is patently NOT science.

You're not even giving me a choice of whether my theory could possibly correct. You're just saying that, of the two, yours has more scientific backing, therefore it is the more logically correct choice.

You still don't get it. Just answer this question, which you totally ignored and dismissed, probably because you have no reasonable answer for it:

I can't prove God didn't create the Earth and life. But I also can't prove that the Keebler Elves didn't. Nor can I prove that Yog-soggoth didn't. Nor can I prove that the Earth wasn't laid like an egg by the Eagle of the Universe. You can't prove that either. You've picked your favorite, arbitrarily, out of all the infinite numbers of Creation myths the human race has conceived, and you've staked your life on it. But you have no proof other than your self-referential Bible, which must be true... because it says it must be true.

On the other hand, there is absolutely no logical way to select the Judeo-Christian Creation myth over, say, the Epic of Gilgamesh, or that of Tagaloa-fa'atutupu-nu'u, the Samoan Creator...

How do you choose?

I've already said that your myth could be correct. But it can be no more or less correct than any other myth proposed to explain the existence of the world. You say God did it. The Samoans say Tagaloa did it. Neither of you has a shred of evidence beyond your myth itself.

You've thrown away logic as a tool. HOW DO YOU CHOOSE?

 

[Pako]

You choose by the saving grace of Jesus who died and the cross for all of mankind's sin and rose again. Since we didn't have miniDV's back then, we'll have to settle for the 500+ eye witnesses that he spoke to after he rose from the dead. Then you have countless personal testimonies of how Christ has helped themselves or family members with illness, depression, financial burdens, and other life problems that seem too big to handle. So you have a choice to believe it or not, it's ultimately your choice. Your choice doesn't confirm or deny Christ.

 

[TheCracker]

No, I can't go and point them all out, I'm not highly educated in the Science behind the Evolutionary belief. You'd have to ask someone who was, like the guys from Answers in Genesis.. Oh, wait, I forgot; they're lieing morons. Sorry.

That seems to rap this thread up then doesn't it...

You choose by the saving grace of Jesus who died and the cross for all of mankind's sin and rose again. Since we didn't have miniDV's back then, we'll have to settle for the 500+ eye witnesses that he spoke to after he rose from the dead. Then you have countless personal testimonies of how Christ has helped themselves or family members with illness, depression, financial burdens, and other life problems that seem too big to handle. So you have a choice to believe it or not, it's ultimately your choice. Your choice doesn't confirm or deny Christ.

There would therefore seem to be more evidence supporting the proof of Bigfoot then there is Jesus Christ?

 

[Touring Mars]

Maybe saying that the whole of answersingenesis.org is rubbish is being a bit harsh, but the example I quoted (and the many examples Famine has debunked) show clearly that there are better places to learn about evolution....

like http://www.talkorigins.org/

or a basic text like Mark Ridley's 'Evolution' (a compilation of short pieces by eminent biologists, from Darwin to Dawkins)

For me, understanding evolution has absolutely sod all to do with religion, faith or belief... it's just boring old science....

unfortunetely, evolution has had it's good name dragged through the dirt by creationists who invite the challenge by attempting to debunk quality science with junk science...

 

[Swift]

You choose by the saving grace of Jesus who died and the cross for all of mankind's sin and rose again. Since we didn't have miniDV's back then, we'll have to settle for the 500+ eye witnesses that he spoke to after he rose from the dead. Then you have countless personal testimonies of how Christ has helped themselves or family members with illness, depression, financial burdens, and other life problems that seem too big to handle. So you have a choice to believe it or not, it's ultimately your choice. Your choice doesn't confirm or deny Christ.

Here's the thing. Very few people, if anyone refutes the new testament. But the old testament is just thrown away by most.

As Pako said, Jesus gave us his grace. The old testament is law and the new testament is the fulfillment of the law. This is when we entered into grace.

Touring Mars, you said that you can not believe in the story of genesis and still be a Christian. That's an oxymoron. I'm not questioning others faith. But if you only believe parts of the bible are true, then you get to pick the parts that are and are not true. Defeating the entire purpose of the scripture.

Burnout's being fighting a hard battle much the way that I was fighting about 30 pages ago. But I've realized that science is more incomplete then scripture. There are things that are written in scripture that talk about things going on today in my life.

Science is a wonderful thing and has helped man in countless ways. But in this particular area, it falls short.

 

[Touring Mars]

Touring Mars, you said that you can not believe in the story of genesis and still be a Christian. That's an oxymoron. I'm not questioning others faith. But if you only believe parts of the bible are true, then you get to pick the parts that are and are not true. Defeating the entire purpose of the scripture.
.

I'm no expert on the Bible, but isn't the Old Testament (inc. Genesis) before Christ, and the New Testament during and after...? If so, I could see how you could take the New Testament to be true, and call yourself a Christian, but not necessarily the Old Testament and Genesis... Creationism is hell-bent (pardon the pun) on qualifying the whole Bible as literally true, whereas science has clearly demonstrated that many so-called facts, as written in Genesis, are (at best) incorrect.... I'd say there are plenty of Christians who don't take Genesis literally... atleast I hope there are....

 

[sicbeing]

There would therefore seem to be more evidence supporting the proof of Bigfoot then there is Jesus Christ?

Don't forget the loch ness monster, UFO's, etc

 

[Duke]

But I've realized that science is more incomplete then scripture. There are things that are written in scripture that talk about things going on today in my life.

Science is a wonderful thing and has helped man in countless ways. But in this particular area, it falls short.

There are millions of things written in the scientific body of work that talk about things going on today in my life, too. From anthropology to psychology, it all has to do with human life and how we live it; how we address our needs and desires. I fail to understand how science is 'more incomplete than scripture'.

As always, I come back to the most telling quote from Emmanuel Kant: "I have found it necessary to deny Knowledge, in order to leave room for Faith." It always seems to come down to that.

 

[Danoff]

Science is a wonderful thing and has helped man in countless ways. But in this particular area, it falls short.

...because you don't like the answer it gives, you feel entitled to believe something you have no reason to otherwise believe in.

You choose by the saving grace of Jesus who died and the cross for all of mankind's sin and rose again.

Funny how you start your argument by assuming the conclusion - then you draw the conclusion from your assumptions.

 

[Swift]

...because you don't like the answer it gives, you feel entitled to believe something you have no reason to otherwise believe in.



Funny how you start your argument by assuming the conclusion - then you draw the conclusion from your assumptions.

Actually, you do like the answer it gives so you choose evolution. That's fine. But it takes just as much faith to believe in evolution as it does in genesis. Sorry Famine, but it's true.

 

[Famine]

You're absolutely right.

But evolution remains true whether or not you believe in it. And I don't.

 

[Pako]

Funny how you start your argument by assuming the conclusion - then you draw the conclusion from your assumptions.

You no longer have to assume anything once you invite Christ into your life as your lord and savior. At that point you know He is real, just like you know the air your breath is real without the need of scientific instruments to tell you so.

 

[Danoff]

That's fine. But it takes just as much faith to believe in evolution as it does in genesis.

Correct, and I don't believe in evolution.

You no longer have to assume anything once you invite Christ into your life as your lord and savior. At that point you know He is real, just like you know the air your breath is real without the need of scientific instruments to tell you so.

I don't know that the air I breath is real. It takes just as much faith to believe in the air I breathe as it does in evolution, as it does in genesis. There is only one thing that I believe and which requires no faith - that I exist in some form. It is the only thing I can logically prove.

I do not "know" that the air is real. How do you "know" that He is real? Something within you tells you it is true. What? And why do you know that that thing can be trusted? Why do you think you even understand yourself well enough to know that your feelings on this matter can be trusted?

 

[Swift]

Correct, and I don't believe in evolution.



I don't know that the air I breath is real. It takes just as much faith to believe in the air I breathe as it does in evolution, as it does in genesis. There is only one thing that I believe and which requires no faith - that I exist in some form. It is the only thing I can logically prove.

I do not "know" that the air is real. How do you "know" that He is real? Something within you tells you it is true. What? And why do you know that that thing can be trusted? Why do you think you even understand yourself well enough to know that your feelings on this matter can be trusted?

1. Then what do you believe?

2. This argument makes no sense. Obviously, we exist to each other and there are certain things that go along with that existance. For you to say that you don't "know" the air is real. Then you don't "know" that you are real. So what is it?

 

[Flame-returns]

In one way or another, every word in the Bible is true. However, you cannot just read a sentence and think that it's as simple as that. It does throw some confusing things in the air, for example, "With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." Alright, sure, you could take that as "Well, hey, that's just something that Christians believe to make them feel better when their so called 'God' doesn't asnwer a prayer or something." Or, rather, it could mean that God is patient with us. He's not going to get mad and send a plague to our house because we do something stupid one day.

So what sentance is not as simple as that, the one where we are all descended from 2 people, or the one where we are not allowed to cross-breed?

Both sound pretty simple, the difference is that on is common sense and one is purely fictional.

 

[Pako]

Correct, and I don't believe in evolution.



I don't know that the air I breath is real. It takes just as much faith to believe in the air I breathe as it does in evolution, as it does in genesis. There is only one thing that I believe and which requires no faith - that I exist in some form. It is the only thing I can logically prove.

I do not "know" that the air is real. How do you "know" that He is real? Something within you tells you it is true. What? And why do you know that that thing can be trusted? Why do you think you even understand yourself well enough to know that your feelings on this matter can be trusted?

If you are aware of your surroundings you would know the air you breath is real. when you blow on a feather you can see it move, when a storm is blowing you can see the trees move. When you have faith in Christ and invite Him into your life, you can see the changes He makes in you. If you are not aware of your surroundings, you will not see these things. If you open your eyes and accept what you see, then you can be aware of your surroundings and see that proof is all around you.

 

[Flame-returns]

But my life is decent (I have a headache and a chest infection, but) I have all I could want or ask for, I am perfectly happy, is Jesus in my life?

No

I was nearly killed on thursday, I had not invited Jesus into my life yet I am unharmed.

Was Jesus looking out for me?

If yes then why?

I'm an atheist, why does Jesus care?

I'm sure many that did die were religious, why was I saved and not them?

Why is God looking out for me and not his followers?

Simple, luck and the police force.

 

[sicbeing]

But Jesus will still save you from car accidents, religous or not, he wants you to live and not be harmed.

 

[Flame-returns]

So why car accidents, why not bus bombs?

What I say about thursday relates to a bomb on my bus while traveling to school.

 

[Danoff]

1. Then what do you believe?

That I exist.

2. This argument makes no sense. Obviously, we exist to each other and there are certain things that go along with that existance. For you to say that you don't "know" the air is real. Then you don't "know" that you are real. So what is it?

It is not obvious to me that we exist - it is probable. I "know" that I exist as the thinker of my thoughts, that is all I know of reality. It is highly probable that I exist as I perceive myself and that you exist as I perceive you, but it is not certain, the only thing that is certain to me is that I exist in some form.

When you say that evolution is not proven and I agree with you - that is the level of skepticism I am applying in order to agree with you. I can say that it is highly probable that you exist and that it is highly probable that evolution is correct. This is based on flawed logical reasoning and a limited amount of experience, but it is the best answer I can provide and I think it is very likely to be the correct answer.

If you are aware of your surroundings you would know the air you breath is real.

I am aware of my thoughts - the content of my brain. What I think are my surroundings may not be. Just as the air I breathe my be an illusion. But as I said above, I think it is very likely that the air I breathe is real - just as I think it is very likely that evolution is correct. Both are based on flawed reasoning - which I must rely on in the absense of any alternative.

when you blow on a feather you can see it move, when a storm is blowing you can see the trees move.

When I blow on a feather I think I blew on it and I think I see it move. That does not mean it happens, it means I thought it happened. Proof is something I cannot provide, I can only provide evidence. Let me give you an example. Perhaps the feather moving was a vision from God. Perhaps God (who is capable of anything) made you think the feather moved even though it did not. You cannot be certain that the feather moved.

When you have faith in Christ and invite Him into your life, you can see the changes He makes in you.

I can see what I think are changes. But I cannot know who made them.

If you are not aware of your surroundings, you will not see these things. If you open your eyes and accept what you see,

I will not accept anything as fact without proof that it is fact - and I cannot prove anything except that I exist. I lack faith, and I am explaining how I can think that science is more likely to be correct than religion - and why it does not require faith for me to do so.

 

[Pako]

But my life is decent (I have a headache and a chest infection, but) I have all I could want or ask for, I am perfectly happy, is Jesus in my life?

No

I was nearly killed on thursday, I had not invited Jesus into my life yet I am unharmed.

Was Jesus looking out for me?

If yes then why?

I'm an atheist, why does Jesus care?

I'm sure many that did die were religious, why was I saved and not them?

Why is God looking out for me and not his followers?

Simple, luck and the police force.

This wasn't a reply to my post was it? I ask that because I fail to see the relevance to what I was saying. Is this a new topic, "Life is good enough without Christ" perhaps? Maybe the point that you were trying make is that you don't know how much better your life could be until you accept Christ into your life. Is that what you are saying?

God promises that who ever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life (John 3:16). So even if I get run over by a truck, God promises eternal life if I believe in Him. Pretty cool, eh?

 

[sicbeing]

God promises that who ever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life (John 3:16). So even if I get run over by a truck, God promises eternal life if I believe in Him. Pretty cool, eh?

If only more people knew about this, maybe the world would be a better place

oh, wait...

 

[Pako]

That I exist.



It is not obvious to me that we exist - it is probable. I "know" that I exist as the thinker of my thoughts, that is all I know of reality. It is highly probable that I exist as I perceive myself and that you exist as I perceive you, but it is not certain, the only thing that is certain to me is that I exist in some form.

When you say that evolution is not proven and I agree with you - that is the level of skepticism I am applying in order to agree with you. I can say that it is highly probable that you exist and that it is highly probable that evolution is correct. This is based on flawed logical reasoning and a limited amount of experience, but it is the best answer I can provide and I think it is very likely to be the correct answer.



I am aware of my thoughts - the content of my brain. What I think are my surroundings may not be. Just as the air I breathe my be an illusion. But as I said above, I think it is very likely that the air I breathe is real - just as I think it is very likely that evolution is correct. Both are based on flawed reasoning - which I must rely on in the absense of any alternative.



When I blow on a feather I think I blew on it and I think I see it move. That does not mean it happens, it means I thought it happened. Proof is something I cannot provide, I can only provide evidence. Let me give you an example. Perhaps the feather moving was a vision from God. Perhaps God (who is capable of anything) made you think the feather moved even though it did not. You cannot be certain that the feather moved.



I can see what I think are changes. But I cannot know who made them.




I will not accept anything as fact without proof that it is fact - and I cannot prove anything except that I exist. I lack faith, and I am explaining how I can think that science is more likely to be correct than religion - and why it does not require faith for me to do so.

This is an interesting way to think, ever see The Matrix? Reality is how we perceive it, I have always said. Some people agree, others don't. My definition of reality may not be "ultimate truth", but rather it is the truths that I can grab and get a hold of with my comprehension of what I can perceive as being real. Two people can be standing next to each other and have completely different realizations of a situation, there by making each individuals realities different in their mind. So what matters to you, the reality as you perceive it, or "ultimate truth"? I would assume "ultimate truth", but I am afraid that there are too many times, as you might agree, "ultimate truth" to you is just reality how you perceive it, to others.

 

[Swift]

I will not accept anything as fact without proof that it is fact - and I cannot prove anything except that I exist. I lack faith, and I am explaining how I can think that science is more likely to be correct than religion - and why it does not require faith for me to do so.

If you don't except that you're breathing air currently. Then I don't care what science says, it won't convince you of anything. Your position is completely unworkable and untenable.

 

[Duke]

If only more people knew about this, maybe the world would be a better place

oh, wait...

But what if God promises me eternal life at His side, if only I blow up a subway train full of innocent civilians?

 

[Pako]

There is no what if with what God promises. But while we're on the "what if" game, what if God put scientific evidence in our way so that we may continue to grow technologically to better ourselves as a society through science and medicine?

 

[Danoff]

This is an interesting way to think, ever see The Matrix? Reality is how we perceive it, I have always said. Some people agree, others don't. My definition of reality may not be "ultimate truth", but rather it is the truths that I can grab and get a hold of with my comprehension of what I can perceive as being real. Two people can be standing next to each other and have completely different realizations of a situation, there by making each individuals realities different in their mind. So what matters to you, the reality as you perceive it, or "ultimate truth"? I would assume "ultimate truth", but I am afraid that there are too many times, as you might agree, "ultimate truth" to you is just reality how you perceive it, to others.

Ultimate truth is independant of perception.

Example: Long ago, mankind perceived the world to be essentially flat. After much deliberation, they declared it to be true, since it was consistent with their perception. "The world is flat!!!" But of course it was not, their perception of it as flat did not make it true - not even to them, for they experienced the oblate spheroid of the earth in all of its glory all while thinking it was flat.

If you don't except that you're breathing air currently. Then I don't care what science says, it won't convince you of anything. Your position is completely unworkable and untenable.

My position is not based on its workability. It isn't based on convenience or what I would like to be true. It is based on my experiences and what I am capable of understanding with my brain - it is the inevitable conclusion that one must reach if one truly considers the nature of metaphysics. This is the reason I tell you evolution is not provable, and yet I can tell you that it has more evidencial support than your religious beliefs.