Creationism vs. Evolution

[fukuda 351]

Agreed. The ideas are not both scientific. Though since no one can prove how the universe came about, and the universe must exist before life within it, then in my book both are unscientific since evolution completely lacks any "point of origin" or "universe starting" idea.quote>

How does evolution lack any point of origin?

2) There are some scientific principles in the Bible that weren't scientifically discovered until centuries later.quote>

Please cite where in the bible it says so

Actually a study was done of two men's descendants. One of the men was Dwight L. Moody, a well known preacher of the 1800s. The other man was a fairly famous contemporary of Moody's, but he was a criminal. Of Moody's descendants about 300 were involved in some area of work that one would consider "good" (missionary, doctor, teacher, etc.). Of the criminal's descendants (I don't know the name of the criminal), about 100 had spent time in jail.quote>

Statistic studies are made over huge amounts of unrelated people, not about the descendants of Moody's family.

Testable as in questioning its validity, testing that validity through true faith, and seeing results i.e. countless changed lives.quote>

So yes, undoubtedly christianity has changed lives like any religion, what does this prove, exactly?

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: fukuda

 There are some scientific principles in the Bible that weren't scientifically discovered until centuries later.

........

Please cite where in the bible it says so quote>

For instance, Isaiah 40:22 says the earth is round, which was pretty revolutionary for 700 BC, and was 3 centuries before Aristotle first proposed it.

Job 28:25, in part :To establish a weight for the wind... It wasn't until fairly modern science that it was discovered that air does indeed have weight.

The book of Job also declares that the Lord "hangs the Earth on nothing", sounds like a description of the planet's suspension in space to me.

The Bible, Old Testament specifically, describes many things that modern science now takes for granted but were new concepts when it was written. Even kosher food laws make a lot more sense now that we understand germs.

[fukuda 351]

For instance, Isaiah 40:22 says the earth is round, which was pretty revolutionary for 700 BC, and was 3 centuries before Aristotle first proposed it.quote>

New American Standard Bible (©1995)

It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

American King James Version

It is he that sits on the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretches out the heavens as a curtain, and spreads them out as a tent to dwell in:

quote>

Wait, It clearly states circle of the earth, and circles are not spheres

Job 28:25, in part :To establish a weight for the wind... It wasn't until fairly modern science that it was discovered that air does indeed have weight.quote>

Oh, nice one, but...

World English Bible Job 28:25

He establishes the force of the wind. Yes, he measures out the waters by measure.quote>

Weight or force?

Yup, the old testament describes tons of things... in hebrew and aramaic, which makes it quite hard to translate, actually.. The Isaiah 40:22 is for instance used by the Flat earthists as a proof of the flat earth instead of a round one . If the book was more clear about these concepts, all would be clear but a single line falls easily in translation traps.

[DocRorlach 25]

Good grief; you guys are still at it? And then again, why not> To argue with the bible & it's adherents is like thowing a feather into a canyon and waiting for the echo.

Science, as I always understood it, is a guessing game of theories, hopes, and temporary proof - from the day the first ape-descendent notice the sparks while banging out a flint, until todays quests for ever smaller parts of the atom. Temporary because sooner or later someone comes along to change the ansers or even the questions.

I cannot, and will not argue with anyone's belief in one or more supreme beings. Too much of that is a result of the social and moral environment a person grew up in. If Manticorfan had spent his first decade as a chile amon Amazonean Indians, his pantheon might have been quite different.

But to toss in the bible as scientific writ is really groping for straws: until Gutenberg cut the distribution cost of the good book, it's content - originally based on hearsay and stories passed on via parchment among semi-literate people of their times - was shaped by an large by folks with a very mundane and rather greedy agenda. It's factual content may well have been lost to the politically charged pens of its transcribers.

Still, I fail to see what any of this has to do with the original debate about Darwin and his contrarians?

[TwelveToneMusic 0]

the bible... originally based on hearsay and stories passed on via parchment among semi-literate people of their timesquote>

Where did you get this from? Luke was a historian, for example. He is even referred to as a practitioner of medicine in his time. Paul was in extremely high standing within the Jewish community and was held as an expert regarding their history and traditions, where their texts were derived from, etc. He was regarded as a wise teacher, and people sought him for advice.

[DocRorlach 25]

Where I got it from is simple logic. 2,000 years ago those who could and would write and read were few and far inbetween. For nearly 1,800 years things only gradually improved. Since I do not know, I grant that Like and some of the other apostles could read and write and by all means where learned men - for their time. But mankind has learned a number things since. And has become so diverse in social, moral, and - yes - scientific manners that  events such as led to the birth of christianity could not happen. As good as the original idea might have been, today it would be argued until it died.

Moreover, even if we assume that originators did all the bible claims, and that hteir intentions were for the redemption of all mankind, those who took control of the words in the subsequent centuries have given what the bible is today. And that means I have as much a chance to get scientific facts from it as I might have reading the brothers Grimm.

Besides, the bible demands that it, like all other religious tomes, it is taken on faith - not on literal words.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Oh yeah, the relativistic argument combined with 'times have changed'. As if God was powerful enough to create, but not smart enough to get His point across through the written word. I love the selective illogic in that thoroughly tired argument.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: crushedcar

Whoa, hold that thought just a minute.  That statement is very absloute and should not be used that way. That type of thinking entails the idea that if the Ph.Ds of the world said that jumping from an airplane at altitude without a parachute you won't die, then that becomes true. quote>

The point is that I trust the consensus of the experts over the consensus of the common people.

Are you then suggesting that all religious people remove themselves to... I don't know... Tibet ... because religious people don't accept some parts of science and cannot advance science? There exists the possibility of being an expert in two fields at once.quote>

...what? I never said anybody had to move anywhere. Where'd that come from?

As for religious people advancing science... well, sure, of course they're permitted to do that. Nobody wants to exclude people unnecessarily.

But there's a fine line between advancing science and trying to steer it towards supporting your agenda. Intelligent Design is the latter.

Wrong. The Instiute for Creation Research is one organization of guys with Ph.Ds in science that try to find proof of creation. quote>

Okay, almost every scientist. Obviously I was being a tad hyperbolic.

As for those guys trying to find scientific proof of creation... have they found any?

Watch it. That is almost as bad as calling all religious people uninformed.quote>

I can see where my statement could be interpreted that way, but that's not what I meant.

You can't just disregard the existence of an idea because experts disagree with it. After all, the experts said that the Titanic was unsinkable. quote>

No, but then again, the experts tend to be right more often than those who aren't.

And, well, we've learned more since the days of the Titanic, we know exactly why it sank and design ships better these days. The hubris there was that no one had really ever built a ship that big before, so unforeseen issues came up. And, well, the mistakes made themselves apparent in, what, a decade? The theory of evolution has been around for 150 years. No glaring flaws have manifested.

Muslims (I think) actually claim Abraham as the father of their nations.quote>

They do. But how is that relevant, exactly?

There are some scientific principles in the Bible that weren't scientifically discovered until centuries later.quote>

Like what?

Actually a study was done of two men's descendants. One of the men was Dwight L. Moody, a well known preacher of the 1800s. The other man was a fairly famous contemporary of Moody's, but he was a criminal. Of Moody's descendants about 300 were involved in some area of work that one would consider "good" (missionary, doctor, teacher, etc.). Of the criminal's descendants (I don't know the name of the criminal), about  100 had spent time in jail.quote>

That makes perfect sense, actually. Propensity for certain behaviors is often genetic, and what isn't genetic can be very much learned from one's parents. So, yeah, a criminal is going to be more likely to have criminals for children, and someone who's productive with his life is going to be more likely to have productive children.

That isn't divine intervention, answered prayers, karma, or anything like that. There's a perfectly rational down-to-earth scientific explanation for it.

 

And does evolution not tend to close people's eyes toward religious matters?quote>

Evolution specifically is a small thing, so let's talk about science in general instead. Does science close people's eyes to religious matters? Not inherently. I have no desire to practice any religion but I am still interested in knowing about it.

Besides, when I say that religion closes eyes I don't mean that it makes them reject science (it may or may not, many people are religious and are still quite open to at least some science). What I mean is that it cripples their capacity for rational thought and common sense.

...then again, a lot of people, religious or not, don't have much common sense or rationality to begin with. Those sorts of people can be made gulls of by non-religious organizations, too.

We're by far the most intelligent species on the planet, yet at the same time we're also the stupidest.

[Gridlock 9]

You know you cant have this petty arguement with Islam  , it sometimes , refers to God -Allah 

as the Shaper  ..

[DocRorlach 25]

Originally posted by: manticorefan

Oh yeah, the relativistic argument combined with 'times have changed'. As if God was powerful enough to create, but not smart enough to get His point across through the written word. I love the selective illogic in that thoroughly tired argument.quote>

 

Not selective at all, rather eveolutionary instead: the difference kies in the fact that I do not believe in your god, or any other for that matter. I simply do not "believe" and therefore the require a bit more than the words of a handful of men that were twisted by time and other men. Bible, Koran, Torah, or the Fable of the Monkey God for that matter. They are just stories, nothing but words quoted over and over again to "proof" this or "disprove" that - and it is usually the same words.

To say it with Charles Dickens: Bah Humbug!

[Patricius Maximus 236]

That interpretation of the Bible presents even more continuity errors than there are already.quote>

Someone who doesn't believe in holiness thinks they understand how to interpret the bible.quote>

Do you understand how to interpret the Bible yourself? I may be biased because I am an unbeliever, but you may be biased because you are a believer. Any rational person has the capability to spot continuity errors in any work, be it sacred or otherwise.

No, it addresses the situation firsthand.  Before Adam and Eve, there was no sin on earth.  They could eat other fruit because it was not deemed sinful to do so.  They ate the fruit which was deemed sinful, and therefore were subject to the consequences of their actions, which were weighed against  righteousness and holiness.  They corrupted the nature of everything.  You act as if this was a small thing which happened.  You also act as if the bible does not say that all sin is punishable by death, it does.  For someone who doesn't believe in holiness, I'm sure you have a problem with this.quote>

You still do not explain why eating the fruit was deemed to be sinful in the first place. Why did God not want them to eat the fruit? You still have not answered that.

What order did he give?  Carry out his promises?  It wasn't about carrying out promises as much as judging with absolute truth, no compromises.  This isn't court where jurors have to decide what they believe about OJ based on the evidence they have.  God has all the evidence, and he judged in holiness.  Promises had nothing to do with it.quote>

Did God not promise consequences for eating the fruit? If so, he did carry out his promise. If you view a promise by a deity in a book as absolute truth, then that statement is correct for you.

First of all, if you wish it to be accepted by science...quote>

You make it sound like a club, where all the people who know everything get to hang out.  Let me respond by saying that if you are ever going to be able to experience the unadulterated truth, you have to be willing to the possibility that there is much more to the truth than scientific matters.   quote>

I do not wish to experience the "unadulterated truth" without there being empirical proof that it is the unadulterated truth. That is my "worldview" and if you do not agree with it, that is your right.

but that will never happen if you do not open a bible and read what it is about, and I don't mean picking out verses you don't like here and there, and stopping there to form an uneducated opinion.  You can't test any scientific data on a subject without testing all matters pertaining to the true understanding of it.  Christianity is no different.  quote>

For your information, I do possess a Bible, and I have read much of it.

Read the whole of what the bible says, what it says about God, about the character of god, and observe the countless repeated test results: radically changed lives, opened eyes.quote>

The only thing the result proves is that lives can be changed if there is motivation to do it, be it religious or otherwise.

It's about time we got to the cliche 'blind faith'.quote>

The only thing that blind faith means is a belief in something based on no evidence or even contradictory evidence.

Intelligent design is a a postulation based upon scientific observation, in and of itself.  If someone corrupts that, sorry.  Creationism and Intelligent Design are radically different.  Creationism is commonly associated with the biblical teaching of creation, Intelligent Design is not a Christian belief.  Many non-believers subscribe to Intelligent Design and not Creationism.quote>

Oh, it certainly is a postulation, but it is not testable by the scientific method, and in fact Evolution is simpler and fits the evidence much better than Intelligent Design.

In a scenario in which two scientific theories are competing, the one that is simpler and fits the evidence best will be validated and accepted.

But, the idea of both Creationism and Intelligent Design is the same -- a supernatural creator creator "intelligently designed" all life-forms on Earth, and Evolution does not happen. I say supernatural for intelligent design because it was proposed and is promoted by people who believe the designer to be supernatural. Intelligent Design does not include the Bible in it, but that is the only real difference.

They don't embody the theory of Intelligent Design or change the fact that it is based on science just because they acted the way they did.   quote>

Oh, really. Who does embody it? The people at the Discovery Institute all believe in Creationism, but are promoting Intelligent Design to get it accepted. I would like you to read the Wedge Document as well as evidence of this.

A classic example of ignorance about what it teaches.  Christians do not believe that they will receive eternal punishment for not upholding supernatural moral responsibility.  The bible does not teach this.   The bible NEVER says that you go to heaven based on 'being good'.  Never.quote>

Christians often believe things the Bible does not teach. Just look at the classic Christian scenario for the end times with the Antichrist, his 7-year reign, or the rapture. Just because it is not in the Bible does not mean Christians do not believe in it, and in fact I have met many Christians who believe what I have mentioned about a supernatural moral code.

That's because you have an incorrect understanding of what holiness is. I suggest you read some R.C. Sproul. quote>

Hmm, from that statement it is in doubt if Christianity opened up anything for you other than intolerance for any other views of "holiness". It is all irrelevant if there is no entity that can be "holy". What you have said about holiness makes the Christian God appear all the more sadistic.

Now THIS is hilarious. Science never does this, right? What about dark matter? Lol. quote>

Dark Matter is not totally accepted by scientists as fact. Rather, there are two views:

1) Current theories of gravity are totally correct and there is matter there to explain the observations.

2) Current gravitational theories are not totally correct, and must be modified to fit observations.

This question is testable, and is and will be tested. If a WIMP is found in a detector, then that will lend more credibility to the dark matter hypothesis. If no WIMPs are found after a long time, then that will certainly raise doubt.

Your understanding of the bible is clearly skewed. A bunch of old men... lol. Again, you're speaking in typical generalized misconception based on lack of information, yet like always you claim to know things about which you propose false assumptions. Old men... quote>

Not all the men that wrote the Bible were old, but if they were alive they would be old now. That is what he/she meant.

consider that the first Christian church was started in reaction to the reappearance of Jesus, at a time when saying that you followed him was an offense punishable by death. Yet for some unknown reason ordinary people suddenly became radical advocates of the religion, with all of the disciples suffering deaths of intense torture after boldly setting out and preaching in dangerous cities, etc., Paul even asking to be crucified upside down, not worthy of the same death as his master. That means nothing to you, right? This is historical.quote>

Yes, it is historical. It is also the same reaction that many modern cults have to events that they claim existed. It is just that the Cult of Jesus was widely accepted. Think about it: according to many definitions of a cult, the early Christian Church was one.

Agreed. The ideas are not both scientific. Though since no one can prove how the universe came about, and the universe must exist before life within it, then in my book both are unscientific since evolution completely lacks any "point of origin" or "universe starting" ideaquote>

True, no one has an eyewitness account of the Big Bang, but its existence is supported by the evidence, among them the CMBR. And what's that about Evolution? A theory does not have to explain how the Universe began to be valid.

And does evolution not tend to close people's eyes toward religious matters?quote>

The theory itself has nothing to do with religion.

Testable as in questioning its validity, testing that validity through true faith, and seeing results i.e. countless changed lives.quote>

No hypothesis is testable through faith. All hypotheses are testable by evidence.

I believe that all sin is punishable by death, and the fact that we're all sinners, and the fact that Jesus took the punishment for all that we deserve is proof that God is not malicious, proof that he demonstrated what the meaning of love is, without compromising his holiness. If someone steals a Milky Way, do I think they should be shot on site, no. There's a difference. For one I don't decide judgment for sin, God does, and two he already has, and three I can't 'cast the first stone' in that respect. You've lowered yourself to cheap shots now.quote>

That is a false statement extrapolated to prove a predetermined conclusion. It does not prove anything.

Oh yeah, the relativistic argument combined with 'times have changed'. As if God was powerful enough to create, but not smart enough to get His point across through the written word. I love the selective illogic in that thoroughly tired argument. quote>

You cannot deny that we know more now than we did 3000 years ago, thus your argument is not valid.

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: crushedcar

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: TwelveToneMusic

And intelligent design, non-scientific? Lol. May I recommend a few videos to you... "The Privileged Planet", "Unlocking the Mysteries of Life", and "Icons of Evolution". quote>

Think that's funny, eh?

Well, let me recommend the National Center for Science Education's take on the matter to you.

If scientists with Ph.Ds say it's not scientific, than it's not scientific.quote>

Whoa, hold that thought just a minute.  That statement is very absloute and should not be used that way. That type of thinking entails the idea that if the Ph.Ds of the world said that jumping from an airplane at altitude without a parachute you won't die, then that becomes true. 

quote>

No it doesn't. It probably means that in their long, careful and considered study they've learned something that you in your brief look at a paragraph summary are not aware of and haven't taken into account. If all the PhDs of the world said jumping from a plane with no parachute was quite ok, then I think I'd be paying close attention to see what kind of anti-gravity device they'd invented, rather than summarily dismissing it as ridiculus. Don't forget that when there is a scientific consensus on something it means that a lot of very skilled people have studied the issue for a long time, discussed, argued and debated it thoroughly from many different perspectives and areas of expertise, beaten it to a pulp to the best of their ability and its still working.

Originally posted by: TwelveToneMusic Lol. Unopposed? Wow. Okay, I'm done with this discussion. A bunch of 'science proves everything' guys who don't know how science even works to explain things, and who say that evolution is unopposed. That's the funniest thing I've heard in a while. Right, there's absolutely no opposition to evolution, never has been, because it's so sound and so complete. Too funny.

And intelligent design, non-scientific? Lol. May I recommend a few videos to you... "The Privileged Planet", "Unlocking the Mysteries of Life", and "Icons of Evolution".

quote>

And what exactly in any of those is the evidence that ID is scientific? You still have not explained that yet.

Originally posted by: TwelveToneMusic You may not agree with everything they're arguing, but you'll be a little more informed about the error in your assessment regarding intelligent design as unscientific.

quote>

And please don't label people as uninformed or assume they are ignorant simply because they disagree with you. While it may be one reason for disagreement that the person is indeed uninformed, the other possibility is that they are knowledgeable and have examined the evidence to reach an informed and considered conclusion based on information that you may not be aware of.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: sam

And please don't label people as uninformed or assume they are ignorant simply because they disagree with you. While it may be one reason for disagreement that the person is indeed uninformed, the other possibility is that they are knowledgeable and have examined the evidence to reach an informed and considered conclusion based on information that you may not be aware of.quote>

But it happens all the time here, usually directed at those of us on this side of the issue. Now it's not ok? Did I miss a memo?

[JanYpe 17]

Originally posted by: manticorefan

Originally posted by: sam

And please don't label people as uninformed or assume they are ignorant simply because they disagree with you. While it may be one reason for disagreement that the person is indeed uninformed, the other possibility is that they are knowledgeable and have examined the evidence to reach an informed and considered conclusion based on information that you may not be aware of.quote>

But it happens all the time here, usually directed at those of us on this side of the issue. Now it's not ok? Did I miss a memo?quote>

Ack, woe is you, for people didn't take kindly to the side of an argument that relies solely on falsehoods and assertions of faith.

Because it's always the same misrepresentations, misconceptions and sheer fantasy that get dragged with undeserved optimism to the table by people whose view of god is so diminutive that anything that wasn't scribbled down more than two thousand years ago is dismissed out of hand. Shaking your fist and saying "but it´s in the bible and that´s all the proof you need" isn´t evidence of anything, just undeserved arrogance.

 "This side of the issue" does not and will never rely on informed and considered conclusions. "This side of the issue" is only in the issue, because some of the faithful were so blind that they couldn't bear having to adjust their view of creation to the discoveries that have been made.

So go on. Copy and paste all the fundamentalist talking points that disprove evolutionary biology, the ones that prove biblical foreknowledge, the ones that prove evolution is a vast atheistic conspiracy and bring on whatever other fantastical statements you might have up your sleeve. But don't for a second pretend that it is anything other than sanctimony and hubris.

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: manticorefan

Originally posted by: sam

And please don't label people as uninformed or assume they are ignorant simply because they disagree with you. While it may be one reason for disagreement that the person is indeed uninformed, the other possibility is that they are knowledgeable and have examined the evidence to reach an informed and considered conclusion based on information that you may not be aware of.quote>

But it happens all the time here, usually directed at those of us on this side of the issue. Now it's not ok? Did I miss a memo?quote>

Actually compared to many other discussions elsewhere on the issue this one goes along pretty well without a lot of that kind of thing and I think that's a good thing because we get more discussion of the issues in. I'm not denying that people don't sometimes make mistakes and tread on other people accidentally and sometimes are not aware that they've done so. But mostly they are pretty quick to try to put things right again once they do realise.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: JanYpeBut don't for a second pretend that it is anything other than sanctimony and hubris.quote>

Thank you for snidely displaying exactly what I'm talking about. Your own sanctimonious hubris is duly noted, as it is in every other thread you pop up in. They must give mod badges out in Crackerjack boxes now.

BTW, I've got 2 words for you, and they're not 'let's dance'.

[Meg 368]

Okay, guys, time again to stop and take a slow deep breath.

Let me see if I can sort this out.

Sam said:

And please don't label people as uninformed or assume they are ignorant simply because they disagree with you. While it may be one reason for disagreement that the person is indeed uninformed, the other possibility is that they are knowledgeable and have examined the evidence to reach an informed and considered conclusion based on information that you may not be aware of.quote>

Manticorefan replied:

But it happens all the time here, usually directed at those of us on this side of the issue. Now it's not ok? Did I miss a memo?quote>

JanYpe replied (in part): 

Shaking your fist and saying "but it´s in the bible and that´s all the proof you need" isn´t evidence of anything quote>

Manticorefan replied (in part):

BTW, I've got 2 words for you, and they're not 'let's dance'.quote>

And, yes, I am leaving out all of the talk about sanctimony and hubris.

 

Let's skip the words that describe each other can get back to the discussion.  Which, at this point, seemed to be that (some people think) that each side is ignoring the evidence of the other.

[Duke87 1,070]

People don't waiver from their positions easily. Minds tend to already be made up on these kinds of things by the time someone reaches young adulthood.

Not everyone makes up their mind the same way... and when people disagree, that makes those who disagree with you appear very thickheaded, which can be quite frustrating.

That said... bear in mind that when someone who is a highly active member does something, they're setting an example for newer and less active members.

Do we really want to teach them by example that taking attitudes with each other is acceptable?

Either god or evolution gave you a brain. Use it and think before you speak.

EDIT: What Ski said.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

People don't waiver from their positions easily. Minds tend to already be made up on these kinds of things by the time someone reaches young adulthood.quote>

I have also found that people tend to make a definite decision when they have enough information to make it, which often happens by the time of young adulthood.

That said, I think the basic point of the reminders by SkiGeek is "dicuss the issues, not each other". A more elaborate point would permit debate with a person, but no personal attacks.

What the "issues" are in this thread are complex, as the title is somewhat deceptive. "Evolution vs. Creationism" is really "Evolution and Abiogenesis vs. Creationism and Intelligent Design", and there a lot of sub-currents within those arguments, not the least of them being Occam's Razor and the motivation of a deity, and the latest being the argument that God was a sadist or holy when in the Bible he expelled the first humans out of Eden.

Lastly, let us get back to the issues here, and use your highly evolved brains. You are a sapient organism, so act like one, and use some logic.

- Patricius Maximus

[Airtime&Gravity 0]

Is it just me, or is this thread more a debate about Christianity being correct and science wrong through evolution or creation (and vice versa)?

Now, I believe in God, but I believe in evolution. Before I started posting here(the site, not the thread), I seem to remember reading that that the two incompatible. I don't think they are, as I believe that God set up a plan for what was to happen, and it then occurred from the start with the big bang to modern times. I believe in science, and I need to see evidence to believe something (and yet I still believe in God).  

Fundamentalists say, "what we say is correct because it says so in the Bible." Well, if that is so, then answer this: The Bible says Adam and Eve had two sons Cain and Able, but then, where did the other people necessary to populate the earth come from? Using the logic of fundamentalists, Cain and Able either had sex with Eve or were asexual. Since humans are not asexual, then that means Cain and Able had sex with Eve, and if they didn't then you admit that evolution is real.

If you claim that creation and Christianity is correct because the Bible contains science that was unknown at the time, then I can counter your argument by claiming Islam is the true religion because the Koran contains science that was unknown at the time.  The point it that we don't know if creation and the religion we believe in is correct.  It's called faith not fact, and we will not know what is true until the day we die.  As for me, I hope God isn't the bigot He is described as in the Bible.

I consider myself Christian, and I recognize the legitimacy of other religions.  All I can do is lead a lead a good life, and if God does exist, hope He isn't the way that some Christians paint Him as.  The way I see it is that as long as you lead a good life and accept the true religion (even if you didn't practice it while living), then you get to enter Heaven.  Those who have to will then go to Purgatory to atone for their sins.  If God does not exist, then there is not much I can do.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Airtime&Gravity

Now, I believe in God, but I believe in evolution. Before I started posting here(the site, not the thread), I seem to remember reading that that the two incompatible. quote>

I don't think they are incompatible either.  Nor do I see the incompatibility between a belief in God and the possibilities of life on other planets.  But that one comes up every now and then too.

Fundamentalists say, what we say is correct because it says so in the Bible. Well, if that is so, then answer this: The Bible says Adam and Eve had two sons Cain and Able, but then, where did the other people necessary to populate the earth come from?  quote>

According to the Book of Jubilees (which is one of the books banned from the bible), Cain and Abel married their sisters.

As for me, I hope God isn't the bigot He is described as in the Bible. quote>

I would agree with you but, imho, that is a contradiction in terms.    God can't have the flaws that human beings have.

 

 

[Patricius Maximus 236]

Is it just me, or is this thread more a debate about Christianity being correct and science wrong through evolution or creation (and vice versa)?quote>

It's not just you, it is a real phenomenon. With Creationism involving religion and science involving taking nothing on faith, that debate is bound to pop up.

Fundamentalists say, "what we say is correct because it says so in the Bible." Well, if that is so, then answer this: The Bible says Adam and Eve had two sons Cain and Able, but then, where did the other people necessary to populate the earth come from?quote>

According to the Book of Jubilees (which is one of the books banned from the bible), Cain and Abel married their sisters.quote>

Ah, but the fundamentalists believe in only the "canon" Bible, at least the ones I've seen. So, there is another continuity error.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Duke87 1,070]

Well, it'll be interesting to see what conclusion Benny and his boys arrive at on that one.

What might be more interesting, though, is how my mother (biology major in college and former science teacher who is against teaching creationism or ID in science classes, devout practicing Catholic) will react if they rule against evolution.

[aiumkastarkius 0]

GENESIS IS A STORY

IT CONTAINS NO FACTS WHATSOEVER

PERIOD!!!!

SO DON'T FORCE IT ON THE REST OF US!

[Patricius Maximus 236]

A little too bold, but it does state the point.

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: Duke87 Well, it'll be interesting to see what conclusion Benny and his boys arrive at on that one.

What might be more interesting, though, is how my mother (biology major in college and former science teacher who is against teaching creationism or ID in science classes, devout practicing Catholic) will react if they rule against evolution.quote>

Apparently the ID people weren't invited.

Rome meeting snubs intelligent design, creationism

By NICOLE WINFIELD – 3 days ago

ROME (AP) — A Vatican-backed conference on evolution is under attack from people who weren't invited to participate: those espousing creationism and intelligent design.

...

Organizers of the five-day conference at the Pontifical Gregorian University said Thursday that they barred intelligent design proponents because they wanted an intellectually rigorous conference on science, theology and philosophy to mark the 150th anniversary of Charles Darwin's "The Origin of Species."

While there are some Darwinian dissenters present, intelligent design didn't fit the bill, they said.

"We think that it's not a scientific perspective, nor a theological or philosophical one," said the Rev. Marc Leclerc, the conference director and a professor of philosophy of nature at the Gregorian. "This makes a dialogue very difficult, maybe impossible."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hJK9enh8baMhdRguzkPFWcjJj9NQD96O3T282

quote>

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

TwelveToneMusic said: For one, this isn't addressing the situation. That's not what ID says. This is just a sarcastic statement that says you don't agree with them. It's not a real description of ID. What ID says is similar, but is not the result of being confounded by complexity. The complexity issue is brought up in direct correlation with the organizational and informational structures in life, which it states are too complex for *natural selection* to derive. It states that life is too complex for natural selection to have gotten us here. ID does not say that they simply can't understand the complexity. There are equally gifted scientific minds working with ID as with evolution.quote>

Sadly, this is what ID says.  If the so-called scientists of the ID group say something is too complex to have been formed by Natural Selection, or its variants (sexual selection, etc), then they are automatically falling back on a divine interventionist. quote>

I found this which as far as I can tell is the authoritative definition of ID as stated by its main proponents:

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

- Discovery Insititute website: http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php#questionsAboutIntelligentDesign

quote>

Although its proponents often claim that an alien intelligence could be the designer, the definition clearly states "the Universe".

Also it seems to miss the point that a theory is an explanation. They haven't given one in this definition.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: aiumkastarkius ---description of quote deleted---  quote>

No facts whatsoever? Really? If that were the case, it would match your overly-hyperbolic opinion pretty well. No one is forcing anything on you. At all.

As for the Vatican Enrichment Corporation, they are in no way representative of Christianity anyways, so their declarations are meaningless. They're just advancing syncretism for their own dubious purposes. They stopped teaching the Bible centuries ago, they're not going to start now.

(Not to insult anyone's beliefs, just stating my own learned view.)

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: sam

Apparently the ID people weren't invited.quote>

And that is why the Catholic church, even with all its flaws, has a certain awesomeness to it that other churches simply do not. Christians kicking ID and creationism out of the discussion and talking just about evolution. Rich, ain't it?

Also, having the love child of Count Dracula and Emperor Palpatine for a pope makes it even better. 

[fukuda 351]

They stopped teaching the Bible centuries ago, they're not going to start now.quote>

Catholics don't see the point of teaching the Bible. They teach the Evangiles, which are the texts about christianity after all