Creation vs. Evolution

[Burnout]

Great post Famine. 👍

...also great how no one acknowledged it.

It was directed at me, that's why no one else answered it.

 

[Burnout]

Pretty much....

The idea of evolution, as it has been put in this thread is just not a feasible possibility to me. Now, the idea the animals and plants evolve within their own species makes very good sense.

Also, if Evolution is the case. Then Humans will go no further. or it'll be a few billion years before we do. For the simply fact that many genetic illnesses, like asthma, epilipsy and others can be treated and hence those people can reproduce. By the rules of Darwin, these people should die off and only the stronger survive. That's no longer the case.

👍

 

[Famine]

Second and Third Paragaphs:
In the given figure of speech, how is a Christian any different from a Scientist? He wants answers, as does every other human on this planet, it's in our nature. However, we don't need to go and try to come up with crazy answers, we already have much more believable ones.

There isn't any scientific proof or evidence with enough weight to show one Christian that there is no God. End or story.

Depends on your Christian.

There's masses and masses of evidence to show that certain things, as described in the Bible, simply didn't happen (or at the very least didn't happen in the way described) or CANNOT happen. Now, if you're of the mind that the Bible is the infallible word of God, and parts of it aren't true, where does that leave you? Of course, the real answer is "Doing what my avatar is."

How is a Christian any different from a scientist? You answered it yourself with your very next sentence. You already have believable answers and don't need to go looking for crazy ones (incidentally, no scientist would try to come up with a crazy answer - he'd evaluate the results he has and come to the conclusion which best describes the data accurately, but that's besides the point).

It doesn't matter whether the "answers" are believable or crazy. What matters is that they correct. You are content with your answers, because they make you feel warm and fuzzy, safe in the knowledge that your Lord died for your sins, your God will protect you and you've got an afterlife to look forward to. You don't seem to care when they're patently wrong - you just say that science has obviously messed up because you KNOW you're right (whilst accepting every other form of science blindly and compliantly). You're right, so the entire scientific community must be wrong. Yet YOU call scientists "egotistical" and "close-minded" (sic).


THAT'S where a devout, orthodox religious person and a scientist differ.

 

[Swift]

Depends on your Christian.

There's masses and masses of evidence to show that certain things, as described in the Bible, simply didn't happen (or at the very least didn't happen in the way described) or CANNOT happen. Now, if you're of the mind that the Bible is the infallible word of God, and parts of it aren't true, where does that leave you? Of course, the real answer is "Doing what my avatar is."


THAT'S where a devout, orthodox religious person and a scientist differ.

What's funny is that life couldn't just spring up on the earth as it is. But we are to believe that the conditions were so different a long time ago that it could...

Yeah, now where is concrete evidence for that?

So we are the same, but different.

 

[Famine]

What's funny is that life couldn't just spring up on the earth as it is. But we are to believe that the conditions were so different a long time ago that it could...

Yeah, now where is concrete evidence for that?

All around you.

Get a shovel (and a pickaxe - it's going to be hard tunnelling). See for yourself. It might take a little while though.

So we are the same, but different.

Yes. We are both human. Yet you "believe in" the 1,600-2,000 year old (translated) writings of some Middle Easterners, and I can accept that which can be proven and repeatably so, without having to worry about whether or not I accept it in conflict with my "beliefs".

See, that's what is so great about science. Every paper tells you what they did and what equipment they used. So you can pick up the same equipment and chemicals, follow the same procedures and get the same results (if they were right. Different ones if they were wrong). Anyone can do it and see. Now, you try reproducing the parting of the Red Sea (if it WAS the Red Sea), the feeding of the 5,000, the Angel of Death or the turning of water into wine.

 

[Burnout]

the feeding of the 5,000, the Angel of Death or the turning of water into wine.

It's funny that you mention that, actually.

See, it's really, really obvious that all signs of science would point towards "There is no way that could've happened. At all. End of story." But, see, the thing is, we are all aware of that. Completely.

It didn't have to do with Science, or the way things work, it was supernatural. Can science explain any part of the supernatural world? No. And they compelely deny that it exists.

Oh well. I just thought it was funny that you'd even dare mention something that was obviously not something that could just "happen".

 

[Famine]

It's funny that you mention that, actually.

See, it's really, really obvious that all signs of science would point towards "There is no way that could've happened. At all. End of story." But, see, the thing is, we are all aware of that. Completely.

It didn't have to do with Science, or the way things work, it was supernatural. Can science explain any part of the supernatural world? No. And they compelely deny that it exists.

Oh well. I just thought it was funny that you'd even dare mention something that was obviously not something that could just "happen".

You really have a paucity of understanding about what evolution and science are, don't you?

"Science" does not "completely deny" that the supernatural exists. In fact many experiments, under controlled and scientific conditions have been conducted into determining the existence of the supernatural. None of them have succeeded in demonstrating the existence of the supernatural.

Nevertheless, experiments HAVE been carried out, designed in accordance with the scientific method. This is nowhere near "completely deny that it exists".


The point was that ANYONE can read a scientific paper. They can get the equipment - as described in it - and the chemicals - as described in it - even from the same suppliers - as described in it - and carry out the experiments for themselves. They can then compare their results - as described in it - with the paper's. It is this reproducibility which forms the backbone of science. You don't have to take anyone's word for it. Ever. You can do it yourself and see for yourself.

Religion, on the other hand. You're always relying on someone else's word. The Bible - lots of authors. Your church - whomever the preacher is. The voice in your head - claims to be God. None of it can you verify for yourself because you have no details and no frame of reference. You just have to accept that Moses DID part the Red Sea (though it wasn't the Red Sea), because a book tells you. You just have to accept that the Angel of Death came and took the first-born child of the Egyptians, because a book tells you. You just have to accept that Jesus fed the 5,000 with 5 loaves and 2 fishes, because a book tells you.

To quote The Life of Brian:
"You're all individuals!"
"Yes! We're all individuals!"

 

[Swift]

Now, you try reproducing the parting of the Red Sea (if it WAS the Red Sea), the feeding of the 5,000, the Angel of Death or the turning of water into wine.

I've seen lame people made to rise up and walk. I've seen cancer disappear from people. I've seen financial needs met by miracles. I've seen people healed of AIDS and diabetes. That's all on the same level as the multipling the food, parting the red sea and turning water into wine.

So, I haven't seen those miracles, I've seen newer greater miracles.

 

[Duke]

There isn't any scientific proof or evidence with enough weight to show one Christian that there is no God. End of story.

There couldn't possibly EVER be enough physical evidence, because the person of faith has already deemed physical evidence as irrelevant and cast unquestioning faith in the book/imaginary friend of his or her choice. You're right by definition: when you refuse to question something, an inifinite amount of evidence against it pales to dust because you refuse to consider it.

Leaving that aside, how many times do I have to explain that IT IS A LOGICAL IMPOSSIBILITY to prove that something does not exist. Do you understand that yet, or will I need to get out the sock puppets?

 

[PS]

I've seen lame people made to rise up and walk. I've seen cancer disappear from people. I've seen financial needs met by miracles. I've seen people healed of AIDS and diabetes. That's all on the same level as the multipling the food, parting the red sea and turning water into wine.

So, I haven't seen those miracles, I've seen newer greater miracles.

That doesn't make them miracles.

If an atheist did all that would it just be coincidence, luck, and initiative?

[edit]


And I like how you kept it nice and vague so we can't critique it.

 

[ledhed]

Can I see the sock puppets ?

 

[Burnout]

Leaving that aside, how many times do I have to explain that IT IS A LOGICAL IMPOSSIBILITY to prove that something does not exist. Do you understand that yet, or will I need to get out the sock puppets?

Unfortunately, it's the only thing that you guys actually look at. Everything else you deem physically impossible, and complete ignore it.

 

[code_kev]

Well, that's the fundies ONCE AGAIN pwned

I've seen lame people made to rise up and walk. I've seen cancer disappear from people. I've seen financial needs met by miracles.

I've seen fit peoples bodies ripped to shreds, I've seen people die from cancer, and poor people die uber poor. A few good things now and then don't make a miracle, good things just sometimes happen. Half the "miracles" you mentioned sound BS btw, you sound like one of those disgusting TV preachers. "LET MAW HEALING HAAAANDS DO THEIR WORK SISTER, AH CAN FEEEL DA POWAR ORF GAWWD FLOWING INA MAH, YOU SHALL WALK. DEVIL BEGON! I SAID...etc!!!"


I also want sock puppets.

 

[Duke]

Unfortunately, it's the only thing that you guys actually look at. Everything else you deem physically impossible, and complete ignore it.

Nobody in this thread - certainly not any of us capable of rational thought and who understand how science works - has ever said that it is physically impossible for God to have created everything.

Ever. It just goes to show how little you read anybody's posts unless they already agree with you.

In fact both Famine and I, among others, have explicitly stated that it is possible that God created everything... but that there is no evidence outside the Bible that even begins to prove it.

I'll once again ask you the question that you still have never answered: If you accept that your God created everything based on your Bible, how did you choose that particular myth out of all the other Creation myths? I can't prove Jehovah didn't make everything. I also can't prove it wasn't Tagaloa or Gilgamesh or Wodin Allfather or Zeus or Yog-soggoth. They all have equal validity since they are based on faith and not on physical evidence.

What criteria did you use to make your choice? Answer this question directly, or you will just prove to the world at large that you have not considered anything and you are just in this thread to blindly repeat your preconceived ideas.

 

[Swift]

Well, that's the fundies ONCE AGAIN pwned



I've seen fit peoples bodies ripped to shreds, I've seen people die from cancer, and poor people die uber poor. A few good things now and then don't make a miracle, good things just sometimes happen. Half the "miracles" you mentioned sound BS btw, you sound like one of those disgusting TV preachers. "LET MAW HEALING HAAAANDS DO THEIR WORK SISTER, AH CAN FEEEL DA POWAR ORF GAWWD FLOWING INA MAH, YOU SHALL WALK. DEVIL BEGON! I SAID...etc!!!"


I also want sock puppets.

I don't care if they sound like BS, I have personally witnessed these things. But you won't take my word for it so I'm a fundie. Stop with the name calling already.

 

[code_kev]

Care to tell us WHERE you saw a lame person just get up and walk about? People who are lame tend to have terrible muscle wastage...they never just get up and jump about, heck they would need to learn how to walk again. Some one who is lame (and not "pretend" lame, which sounds like what you saw) does NOT just get up because some quack waves their hand over them and shouts alot.

You lot ignore the bad things that happen, these are never anything to do with God, and exadurate any good events/ fake events. What about all the people that prayed to God yet died anyway? As soon as one person who prayed is found, it's "OMG LYKE HE PRAYED AND GOD SAVED HIM!!11!!". It might just be that the human body is a tough complex machine. Why are these miracles saved for us richer people, why does God not help those in real need, like babies with aids in Africa etc?

 

[Famine]

Unfortunately, it's the only thing that you guys actually look at. Everything else you deem physically impossible, and complete ignore it.

I'm sorry? I've already shown you that scientists don't "completely deny" the existence of one phenomenon (or group of phenomena) that you explicitly stated they do.

On what basis do you make these allegations?

 

[Pako]

I wish I could be a Christian! Then I could insult people who didn't agree with me!


Seriously, scientists are "egotistical, close-minded, argumentative people" when they admit they don't know everything and endeavour to find it all out, yet when those who have discovered religion say they don't need to find anything out, because they have their god and their holy book AREN'T closed-minded?

A scientist wants answers. He doesn't care what the answers ARE, so long as they are the truth. An orthodox Christian doesn't want answers. He knows them already and ignores totally any answers which disagree with his point of view, regardless of weight of evidence, because they do not agree with his pre-determined point of view.


The one thing I find MOST baffling of all is that anyone would sit on their chair, in their clothes (hoepfully), typing on their computer, over the internet - all things which have been developed through the auspices of the scientific method - decrying the scientific method when it is applied and disagrees with something they've already made their mind up about.

I view myself as a Christ follow, yet I don't find myself fitting your stereotype. I don't question my faith, you do. The only reason I would try to apply a scientific method to prove God's existence is to help satisfy your need, not mine. My needs are met. Personal testimonies of myself and others have been presented in front of you guys. The question shouldn't be, "Do you believe in God?", it should really be "Do you believe in my personal testimony of what I have seen and experienced first hand......?". If you don't want to believe what I have have seen, felt, experienced, then don't, but that doesn't mean that you can explain all my experiences through science. Sometimes it's God who we have to thank. I think you should give people more credit when they are willing publicly share their experiences. They should also feel like they can say what they believe or have experienced without being mocked. You speak of not having predetermined ideas, objective thinking, and open mindedness or you blame "Christians" for having lack there of? From what I have read, Christ could ascend from the heavens, heal a blind man right in front of you, and walk on water and you would proclaim smoke and mirrors.

Clearly this topic of Creation vs. Evolution is a topic to agree to disagree. Sorry I took so long to reply, but it's been a busy weekend.

 

[Touring Mars]

Care to tell us WHERE you saw a lame person just get up and walk about? People who are lame tend to have terrible muscle wastage...they never just get up and jump about, heck they would need to learn how to walk again. Some one who is lame (and not "pretend" lame, which sounds like what you saw) does NOT just get up because some quack waves their hand over them and shouts alot.

You lot ignore the bad things that happen, these are never anything to do with God, and exadurate any good events/ fake events. What about all the people that prayed to God yet died anyway? As soon as one person who prayed is found, it's "OMG LYKE HE PRAYED AND GOD SAVED HIM!!11!!". It might just be that the human body is a tough complex machine. Why are these miracles saved for us richer people, why does God not help those in real need, like babies with aids in Africa etc?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4681771.stm

Faith healers, fakirs etc. may serve some purpose to people with psychosomatic problems, but other than that, they should be viewed with the contempt they deserve... there will always be frauds and charlatans, but if any one of them can prove it (which I seriously doubt they ever could), James Randi will give them $1 million...

http://www.randi.org/

Famine - your new avatar and title both remind me of a Billy Connolly routine about evangelical 'faith healers'... an evangelist claims he can make a deaf boy hear and to prove it he will ask him to say "Jesus"... at which point the evangelist rams his fingers into the deaf boy's ears and the boy screams "JESUS!"... it's a miracle!

 

[Famine]

I view myself as a Christ follow, yet I don't find myself fitting your stereotype.

What stereotype is that? I made no stereotype - other than that of an orthodox Christian.

You speak of not having predetermined ideas, objective thinking, and open mindedness or you blame "Christians" for having lack there of? From what I have read, Christ could ascend from the heavens, heal a blind man right in front of you, and walk on water and you would proclaim smoke and mirrors.

Not at all. But nor would I say, conclusively, that it was Christ.

Incidentally, shouldn't it be "descend from the Heavens"? Isn't Heaven above us?


Now, you should note that at no point have I "mocked" anyone for their personal experiences. I've made no reference to them. What I have done is try to enlighten people as to what evolution and science really are. As we can see from this thread, they are poorly understood concepts and derided by people who don't grasp the fundamentals of them.

For reference, do you see it as more or less acceptable that people make false allegations towards science and scientists - people who have devoted lifetimes to finding out answers (whether or not they're believable or crazy) - simply because they don't know what science is, than mocking of Christians' personal experiences (which hasn't occurred - at least from me)?

 

[Swift]

Care to tell us WHERE you saw a lame person just get up and walk about? People who are lame tend to have terrible muscle wastage...they never just get up and jump about, heck they would need to learn how to walk again. Some one who is lame (and not "pretend" lame, which sounds like what you saw) does NOT just get up because some quack waves their hand over them and shouts alot.

You lot ignore the bad things that happen, these are never anything to do with God, and exadurate any good events/ fake events. What about all the people that prayed to God yet died anyway? As soon as one person who prayed is found, it's "OMG LYKE HE PRAYED AND GOD SAVED HIM!!11!!". It might just be that the human body is a tough complex machine. Why are these miracles saved for us richer people, why does God not help those in real need, like babies with aids in Africa etc?

Do me a favor. Actually figure out what christianity is about. You certainly do not know.

As far as where I've seen these things? Well, church of course. I've also see sight healed in the middle of a basketball game. But, you don't believe that either.

Of course bad things happen. That's a no brainer. People die, get sick or whatever. Being a christian doesn't make you exempt. Being a christian gives you someone that will be with you through all the storms of life. If you can understand that concept, you'll be closer to understanding christianity.

 

[ledhed]

I view myself as a Christ follow, yet I don't find myself fitting your stereotype. I don't question my faith, you do. The only reason I would try to apply a scientific method to prove God's existence is to help satisfy your need, not mine. My needs are met. Personal testimonies of myself and others have been presented in front of you guys. The question shouldn't be, "Do you believe in God?", it should really be "Do you believe in my personal testimony of what I have seen and experienced first hand......?". If you don't want to believe what I have have seen, felt, experienced, then don't, but that doesn't mean that you can explain all my experiences through science. Sometimes it's God who we have to thank. I think you should give people more credit when they are willing publicly share their experiences. They should also feel like they can say what they believe or have experienced without being mocked. You speak of not having predetermined ideas, objective thinking, and open mindedness or you blame "Christians" for having lack there of? From what I have read, Christ could ascend from the heavens, heal a blind man right in front of you, and walk on water and you would proclaim smoke and mirrors.

Clearly this topic of Creation vs. Evolution is a topic to agree to disagree. Sorry I took so long to reply, but it's been a busy weekend.

Wonderfully and eloquently said ( typed ) .

But that is exactly WHY creation and evolution should be seperated .
Science requires method and proof . You are taught method to discover proof and to establish fact . you have to use clear unbiased rational and logical thought to reach a conclusion . You must not beleive what you cant prove . You must question " why " and " how " . All of this is contrary to religion and religious doctrine . You must accept and believe . You must have faith in what you cant understand .
When you can use scientific methods to establish the existence of a creator and the proofs of creation . Then show the methods used so that they may be repeated and taught and tested by others . Only then should creation be taught as a subject outside of a religion class .

If I woke tomorrow and claimed the existence of stars and their location in the sky would you use them to navigate or demand proof so you did not sail off into the wrong direction ?

 

[Pako]

What stereotype is that? I made no stereotype - other than that of an orthodox Christian.



Not at all. But nor would I say, conclusively, that it was Christ.

Incidentally, shouldn't it be "descend from the Heavens"? Isn't Heaven above us?


Now, you should note that at no point have I "mocked" anyone for their personal experiences. I've made no reference to them. What I have done is try to enlighten people as to what evolution and science really are. As we can see from this thread, they are poorly understood concepts and derided by people who don't grasp the fundamentals of them.

For reference, do you see it as more or less acceptable that people make false allegations towards science and scientists - people who have devoted lifetimes to finding out answers (whether or not they're believable or crazy) - simply because they don't know what science is, than mocking of Christians' personal experiences (which hasn't occurred - at least from me)?

Yes, descend. I have to apologize to you Famine. Although I started out that post directed towards you, it evolved into a general post directed towards all individuals who would like to minimize personal experience to psychological trickery, mass marketing on a spiritual level, or just plain crazy talk. To me, this is mocking that person's experience. On a side note, you speak of scientists and how they document everything so that anyone can repeat their experiment to achieve the same results. This is how science can provide their evidence for things. The only problem I have is when they teach something like evolution as the origin of the earth when there is no way that this can ever be proven. So now I have a personal conflict when I have someone tell me that my God doesn't exist who I believe created the earth when they can't prove their own theory. What evidence they do produce only shows me the evidence of God's work. I have no problem accepting the truth and facts as they become evident, but I can't accept things blindly, and that goes for my own spiritual walk. There are reasons (evidence if you will) for what I believe. If you want to follow your scientific method of being able to reproduce like results, the Bible promises that ANYONE who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life. This is a truth of salvation that can be experienced by everyone, and anyone can do this. If you don't want to try that because to prove it correct to you have to wait until you die, you could always try the "letting Christ be the director of your life" approach. This has proven to be a good move for every who has tried it and live it. That's something you can try today and get results. If you need help in setting up these experiments, let me know....I can help walk you through it.

 

[James2097]

I have no problem accepting the truth and facts as they become evident

 

[Pako]

I'm glad I was able to amuse you.

 

[code_kev]

As far as where I've seen these things? Well, church of course. I've also see sight healed in the middle of a basketball game. But, you don't believe that either.

I don't believe either because there is no proof, and the fact they were "healed" (haw haw) in a church just makes it even funnier, try it in a lab and I may believe you. You tell me why the hospitals don't use em? You show me a SINGLE faith healer who can prove they have healing powers, and I'll give you £5. I want REAL scientific proof. You can't. You won't find a single TRUE healer, they are all fakes. Healing fat old women who convince them selves they are ill, just so they can be "cured" is hardly proof, but to you, it obviously is. Who needs real proof!

There's nothing wrong with having a belief, but there is something wrong in believeing fairy tales.

 

[Swift]

I don't believe either because there is no proof, and the fact they were "healed" (haw haw) in a church just makes it even funnier, try it in a lab and I may believe you. You tell me why the hospitals don't use em? You show me a SINGLE faith healer who can prove they have healing powers, and I'll give you £5. I want REAL scientific proof. You can't. You won't find a single TRUE healer, they are all fakes. Healing fat old women who convince them selves they are ill, just so they can be "cured" is hardly proof, but to you, it obviously is. Who needs real proof!

There's nothing wrong with having a belief, but there is something wrong in believeing fairy tales.

Nobody is a healer but Jesus, again you show your ignorance of the subject of spirituality and the basics of christ.

I'm bored of this. You won't believe me because you say there's no proof. Well, I'm telling you. You choose to say prove it. If I did bring up the doctor's reports etc, you'd probably say it was a misdiagnosis or something.

So, instead of trying to convince you of these things. I'm going to do my best to bring more of them to pass. So, if you hear about miracle things happening in Maryland, you'll know what's up.

 

[xXSilencerXx]

This kid on my church's prayer chain had a broken hip and it healed 5 weeks quicker than any other patient that docter had ever heard of. Code_Kev before you start bashing peoples beliefs you better do some research.

 

[PS]

This kid on my church's prayer chain had a broken hip and it healed 5 weeks quicker than any other patient that docter had ever heard of. Code_Kev before you start bashing peoples beliefs you better do some research.

Research? And you call your claim credible? Some he-said-she-said account of what happened? Puh-leez.

 

[smellysocks12]

This kid on my church's prayer chain had a broken hip and it healed 5 weeks quicker than any other patient that docter had ever heard of. Code_Kev before you start bashing peoples beliefs you better do some research.

Haha what a side splitter.