Creationism vs. Evolution

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[coolotter88 2]

no actually, the theory of gravity is the same type of theory as evolution

atomic theory? why we're all naturally made up of dirt, everyone knows THAT! because the bible said so and I quote

"from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."

ah yes of course, atoms do not exist, in fact, everything is DUST!

Cell theory, living things are not made of cells, we are (as mentioned above) created from dust and everything works because God breathed life into our bodies.

plate tectonics, why, God created the world as is, continents can't possibly be moving

if you argue that the theory of evolution is MERELY a theory, we might as well discard all that is friendly and familiar in the world. you do realize that these other theories, such as Cell theory, Atomic theory, plate tectonics, and gravity are widely accepted EVEN THOUGH they are merely "Theories" just like Evolution. so why evolution? I've provided arguments against other prominent theories, why only argue against evolution?

[Godzillaman 21]

Originally posted by: coolotter88

atomic theory? why we're all naturally made up of dirt, everyone knows THAT! because the bible said so and I quote

"from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."

ah yes of course, atoms do not exist, in fact, everything is DUST!

Cell theory, living things are not made of cells, we are (as mentioned above) created from dust and everything works because God breathed life into our bodies.

quote>

You are taking the bible literally for every word! It wasn't meant to be taken all literally! Maybe you should know that before you say anything. So many people have made this mistake....

[airmale007 3]

I don't think you can legitimately claim Creationism to be a theory in the same sense as Evolution, because you cannot apply any scientific method to Creationism.

Evolution, however, has been examined rigorously, and its underlying principles documented by genetics.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Godzillaman 21]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Godzillaman said: You are taking the bible literally for every word! It wasn't meant to be taken all literally! Maybe you should know that before you say anything. So many people have made this mistake....quote>

Isn't the Bible the "literal Word of God'? If it is literal, then there is no argument for you to make. If it is interpretive, then who's interpretation is correct, and more to the point, why would a god want to be vague and rely on metaphor, knowing (since he is supposed to be omniscient) that it will only cause confusion, war and death?

Barbarossaquote>

    Some of the bible is taken literally, but not all. I am a creationist but I don't believe that we were created from dirt. The universe is probably older than the Bible says, and that the world wasn't made in seven days, but there could be greatly exaggerated, as it was passed on through generations. Seven days would be a lot of work to get everything on this earth, but did you ever think to yourself, is God working through evolution? think about it....

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Mikeaut1 261]

Well God working through evolution stirs a whole new argument. If he created the earth, and the beings that live and breathe on it, then surely he must be responsible for their evolution.

Barb - Why would you say that God's creation of evolution is a big no?

Also, if you actually read the Bible, you would come to find that a lot of the parables, Jesus' spoken word, and the preachings of the prophets and disciples are far from literal. Yes, their messages have underlying meanings that define what you should know from the Bible. But the Bible is highly figurative and metaphorical in terms of language style.

In the Existence of God thread, I posted this scripture from the Bible: ""'Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me." As you can see, this statement is far from literal. You think God is standing at your front door knocking? Obviously it is metaphorical and figurative. This scripture isn't a primary example of the Bible where it's confusing to understand, but read Revelation, the book about the end of the world. Quite confusing, even theists don't fully understand and comprehend the events that are portrayed in that book.

[Stewy13 0]

Haha I love your basic No answer to the debate Barbarossa.

I must say that I'm surprised that creationism could be taken seriously anymore in this day in age. Think about it, old book - scientific research, story - facts. Why can't we just admit that the human race many years ago didn't have the means to answer questions such as, why are we here, what made us, blah blah blah. So we made up a story that not only satisfied our questions but also did another thing, started control. Hey, if we're scared of eternity of "hell", we ain't going to kill our neighborhood now are we? So it answered questions AND kept us from going [Content] on each other.

Marc

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Micah 16]

"from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."quote>

Actually, the Bible was correct in that aspect. All life came from the dirt. Even our bodies prove that with elements such as iron within our blood.

[ShortStraw 1]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Mikeaut1 said: Barb - Why would you say that God's creation of evolution is a big no?quote>

Why would I say it was a Yes? It all comes back to the aspects of God held by the majority of theists: Omnibenevolent, Omnipotent, and Omniscient. If God was All Good, then someone needs to explain disease and neutral/deleterious mutations (not to mention Evil). Arguments that rely on "the greater Good" do not justify the suffering involved. Now, if someone made a Deistic argument, then I would probably shut up, but it wouldn't change my opinion, since it all comes back to the idea of a supernatural being.

Barbarossaquote>

Just a quick reminder, I don't think any religions come out and say that their god is Omnibenevolent.  Most, if not all religions describe a vengeful and/or angry god.

The bible doesn't offer up the idea that god is about perfect utopian happiness.  I think the idea is that suffering is built into the human experience and part of what makes us a beautiful "creation".  Then again, I'm no Christian and I could be totally wrong about this.  Still I see you using the "If god is good then why do we suffer" argument a lot and that one sort of bugs me...

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[bixel 1,223]

Here we go. This solves our problem

http://www.piratejesus.com/SVR/

[2nerdy4u 1]

Hypothesis: a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation

Theory: a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation

EDIT: Whoops. I'm on the wrong page...

Anyway, I don't understand why Christians only believe in the stuff in THEIR book. Sure, this thread is about the Christian creation story (and it is no more than a story), but other religions should be mentioned. If Creationism is all about faith, why not the Ancient Greek idea? Why not the Hindu idea? If these are all about faith, they should all be treated as equal. Christian creation is the only one that ever gets any attention though. Why? Are these other ideas inferior? I don't understand this.

Also, the problem with the Bible's explanation of creation is that it is too fuzzy. "He could've done this or he could've done that." I'm sorry Christians, but get your thoughts in order before you try to challenge Evolution. Figure out what those words mean. If you can't, then the Bible cannot be taken as fact, simply because there is no fact written there.

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: Godzillaman

You are taking the bible literally for every word! It wasn't meant to be taken all literally! Maybe you should know that before you say anything. So many people have made this mistake....quote>

While I would agree with you that there are Christians and even Creationists who do not take it literally (eg Old Earth Creationists including Day Age and Gap variants, and Theistic Evolutionists) there are actually lots of people who do take the Bible literally word for word. They also call themselves Christians and Creationists (eg Young Earth Creationists). Like everyone else they view their opinion as the correct interpretation (and as with any one else they are entitled to their belief)

These people do believe in a literal six day creation and other aspects of the bible literally, for example the members of the Creation Research Society (http://www.creationresearch.org/). In particular I would point you to the CRS statement of belief which they require all their members to subscribe to. It states clearly that the bible is literal truth and that the creation week is to be taken literally. You can find it here: http://www.creationresearch.org/belief_wndw.htm

Some other websites which promote the views of Young Earth Creationism (ie literal 6 day creation):

Institute for Creation Research (http://www.icr.org/)

Founded by Henry Morris, FAQ includes the following:

All things in the universe were created and made by God in the six literal days of the creation week described in Genesis 1:1-2:3, and confirmed in Exodus 20:8-11. The creation record is factual, historical and perspicuous; thus all theories of origins or development which involve evolution in any form are false. All things which now exist are sustained and ordered by God's providential care. However, a part of the spiritual creation, Satan and his angels, rebelled against God after the creation and are attempting to thwart His divine purposes in creation.

quote>

The start of the FAQ also makes for interesting reading, regarding the ICR's attitudes to science, and in particular evolution. FAQ here: http://www.icr.org/home/faq/

Answers in Genesis (http://www.answersingenesis.org/)

Founded by Ken Ham, and apparently quite a popular site for creationists. There are several relevant articles in the Get Answers section.

So I don't think its really fair for you to assume that the person you are replying to knows nothing or has made a mistake, nor that others have made a mistake.

Literal creationism is quite a prominent point of view in the creationism spectrum, so naturally people notice it, as its one of the most well known forms in which creationism presents itself to the public. Its especially noticeable out of all the creationist viewpoints to those who are not in any way creationist.

[schm0 27]

Originally posted by: Micah

Actually, the Bible was correct in that aspect. All life came from the dirt. Even our bodies prove that with elements such as iron within our blood.quote>

Actually, we are made up of star dust. Every atom in your body was created during the massive explosions known as supernovae.

Originally posted by: Mikeaut1 Well God working through evolution stirs a whole new argument. If he created the earth, and the beings that live and breathe on it, then surely he must be responsible for their evolution.quote>

This is more along the idea of Intelligent Design that anything else, and not creationism.

Barb - Why would you say that God's creation of evolution is a big no?

Also, if you actually read the Bible, you would come to find that a lot of the parables, Jesus' spoken word, and the preachings of the prophets and disciples are far from literal. Yes, their messages have underlying meanings that define what you should know from the Bible. But the Bible is highly figurative and metaphorical in terms of language style.quote>

The very essence of a parable is tell a fictional story to illustrate a moral point. Of course the Bible uses all sorts of literary techniques to convey it's point, but the book of Genesis is not told by a single person, and is very straight forward in it's writing style. It is a religious description of how the world was created, not a parable, story, metaphor, or alliteration.

In the Existence of God thread, I posted this scripture from the Bible: ""'Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me." As you can see, this statement is far from literal. You think God is standing at your front door knocking? Obviously it is metaphorical and figurative. This scripture isn't a primary example of the Bible where it's confusing to understand, but read Revelation, the book about the end of the world. Quite confusing, even theists don't fully understand and comprehend the events that are portrayed in that book.quote>

The same can be said about Nostradamus and his random lines of "prophecy" that can be interpreted by the reader to signify all sorts of different people, places or events.

[coolotter88 2]

no intelligent design is actually, just a half hearted attempt at "secularizing" creationism

creationism

"and God created the life, the universe and everything"

intelligent design

"and Go-...er...SOMEONE...created life, the universe and everything"

[Micah 16]

Originally posted by: schm0

Actually, we are made up of star dust. Every atom in your body was created during the massive explosions known as supernovae.quote>

Correct, that's where the dirt came from, and, as the Bible says, "from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."

[DOXXP29 5]

Along with the "Where do we come from" arguement is the parallel arguement "Where do we GO?". If we are simply matter, then does our matter simply decay and our being cease to exist as our body rots and recycles itself into the earth? What part of us is left to go to heaven or hell or to be reincarnated or to enjoy an afterlife with virgins (among other rewards) or to experience nirvana?

The bible says something along the lines of (I'm seriously paraphrasing here) that "you come from god and when you die you will be with god (if you're good and believe, etc.)". So...what goes? Our residual energy fields? Microscopic dust? Do we decay here only to be "reassembled" somewhere in the hereafter? And where would that be? In a parallel universe? Back here on earth? 

In order to discuss the issue of where we come from, it really is necessary to at least address the issue of where we go. If something has a beginning, then logically, it must have an end. If the beginning is ambiguous, then is the end also ambiguous? Many state the religious writing that we are created by god and will return to god. (or god's chosen destination.) These are theories based upon the writings of man which are purported to be god's words. But just as nobody has definitively proven where we came from, no one has proven where we go. Maybe if one could be proven, it would be more easily possible to prove the other. The one thing about the end, though...each of us WILL find out the answer one day!

[coolotter88 2]

if we imagine ourselves with god, we can go outside through philotic connections.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: coolotter88 no intelligent design is actually, just a half hearted attempt at "secularizing" creationism

quote>

 

I thought that's what evolution was.... Like Darwin said, ' At last, a religion that lets me live like the devil'.

The premise of ID is as logical as anything else.

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: manticorefan

Originally posted by: coolotter88 no intelligent design is actually, just a half hearted attempt at "secularizing" creationism

quote>

 

I thought that's what evolution was.... quote>

Hardly.

Originally posted by: manticorefan  .... Like Darwin said, ' At last, a religion that lets me live like the devil'.

quote>

That doesn't sound all that much like a Darwin quote, for one thing the style of wording isn't much like Darwin's. You also seem to have missed the source citation. Where did you find it?

When it was first said that the sun stood still and world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science.

-- Charles Darwin, Origin of Species (1872), reminding his readers that they should always treat "obvious" truths with skepticism

quote>

[ShortStraw 1]

' At last, a religion that lets me live like the devil'.quote>

I looked for this quote or anything like it attributed to Darwin and couldn't find anything.  Still, It wouldn't surprise me if he did say that.  He was a fairly bitter man with a sometimes dark sense of humor and he never shied away from the idea that "science" was fallible.

Some interesting quotes from Darwin that are relevant to this thread though...

“The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an agnostic”

“A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, - a mere heart of stone.”

“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[xxbydesign 1]

This is from a while ago, but I felt like I should respond:

Barbarossa - Worry, not. I have read the Bible, and have had to listen to the parables all of my life. I, personally, believe that a lot of the Bible is interpretive, and a lot is historical. Yet, for some reason, no one wants to answer my question. Who's interpretation is correct, and why? And how is anyone to know which parts are literal, and which are interpretive (excluding obvious metaphor)? Not to mention all of the failings involved in translation, and not to mention who wrote it (not God, but Man).quote>

The whole point is that NO ONE KNOWS. If we are to take the Bible, or any Holy work, as "THE" word of God, then how are we supposed to be able to understand it?? Imagine that translation process for a second... Even if the words were spoken into a prophet's ear, it would still need to be in a human language in order to be understood in our minds, so already the infinite power and truth of the statements are diluted. So since no one knows, and no one can know, then those who claim to know and believe are full of themselves and full of 'it', but more importantly those who claim not to know, BUT BELIEVE ANYWAY, show a true faith.

But we, as a collective species, have a hard time admiting that we do not know. In our curious obsession with the world around us, we constantly seek answers to a myraid of various questions, and have found many that suit us for the time being; others still elude us to this day. It is natrual, then, that we question where we came from and where we are going. In fact it is only through questioning that any true knowlege can be obtained. Therefore, those who do not wrestle with these questions, questions of our origin, of why bad things happen to good people, of where we are going and what were supposed to do on our way, can never truly know or say they know. This is why texts like the Bible must always be questioned and interpreted by EVERYONE, and NO ONE will ever have THE right answer. Those that say they have found the truth in fact lie because the truth they seek comes from doubt, which they say they do not have. But it is when you can say for certain that you do not know, but can still find something within that rings true nonetheless, THEN, perhaps, you may be closer to the truth. But who knows? That, at least, is MY answer to your question.

This reply was inspired by the following video lecture, which I highly recommend:

Rev. Tom Honey:  How could God have allowed the tsunami?

[2nerdy4u 1]

Originally posted by: xxbydesign

The whole point is that NO ONE KNOWS. If we are to take the Bible, or any Holy work, as "THE" word of God, then how are we supposed to be able to understand it?quote>

If we cannot understand the Bible, it cannot be used in scietific debates.

Originally posted by: xxbydesign

So since no one knows, and no one can know, then those who claim to know and believe are full of themselves and full of 'it', but more importantly those who claim not to know, BUT BELIEVE ANYWAY, show a true faith.quote>

This "true faith" you speak of is nothing more than blind faith. Have you read the book Animal Farm by George Orwell? If not, I suggest you do, because blind faith is one of the themes in this book. Only a fool would believe what he does not know.

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: ShortStraw ...

Some interesting quotes from Darwin that are relevant to this thread though...

...

“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”quote>

Now I wonder, did you realise that the passage I quoted (Vox populi, vox Dei) immediately followed the above passage in the original text? It reads thus:

Charles Darwin: (1872) The origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life.  London: John Murray. 6th edition, Chapter 6, page 143-144

Organs of extreme Perfection and Complication.

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.

...

When we reflect on these facts, here given much too briefly, with respect to the wide, diversified, and graduated range of structure in the eyes of the lower animals; and when we bear in mind how small the number of all living forms must be in comparison with those which have become extinct, the difficulty ceases to be very great in believing that natural selection may have converted the simple apparatus of an optic nerve, coated with pigment and invested by transparent membrane, into an optical instrument as perfect as is possessed by any member of the Articulate class.

quote>

Charles Darwin's writings are freely available online, so its really not so difficult to check the original source to make sure the quote you are using is quoted in its proper context.

[Wackee 8]

Without reading all of this thread, I searched for keywords but have not found anything. I'm just wondering if anybody already posted this wonderful site: www.talkorigins.org

For me, it was a very helpful source for giving an overview of the creation/evolution "debate", back then.

[ShortStraw 1]

Actually Sam, I didn't realize the full context of that quote.  Putting it in context certainly clarifies that his comment is not an indictment against evolutionary theory.   Thanks for the clarification and the link.